← 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

Subramaniyam Kulandhaivel, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Namakkal

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

ITA 976/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 976/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 Shri Subramaniyam The Income Tax Officer, Kulandhaivel, Vs. Ward 1, No.7/51, Vadugapalayam, Namakkal. Mavureddipatti Post, Tiruchengode, Namakkal – 637 212. Pan: Aznpk 3744M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Chandan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Chandan, JCIT
Section 250Section 253(6)

assessee for adjudication and overruled the objection of the Registry. We also perused the affidavit of director of Company and the reasons, we condone the delay of 19 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.” 4. In light of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, there ... admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. There is a delay of 34 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed affidavit for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reasons stated in the affidavit for belated filing are as follows

Ragupathy Murugan, Villupuram vs. ITO, Ward-1, Villupuram

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

ITA 1000/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 999 & 1000/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2018-19 Shri Ragupathy Murugan, The Income Tax Officer, 80, Mararajapuram, Vs. Ward 1, Mariyamman Kovil Street, Villupuram. Villupuram – 605 602. Pan: Bltpm 8322G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Nidhi Jain, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Chandan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Nidhi Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Chandan, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 250

Nos.999 & 1000/CHNY/2025 2. There is a delay of 158 days in filing these appeals. The assessee has filed affidavits for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reasons stated in the affidavit for belated filing is that, the assessee was not well ... time. There is sufficient reason and no latches can be attributed to the assessee for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. At the very outset, we notice that the orders of First

Ojas Shashikant Kulkarni, Margao vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 50/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji20 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavankumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 050/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Ojas Shashikant Kulkarni A-3/A-4, C.D. Neighbourhood, Swami Chinmayanand Marg, Gogoi, Salcete, Margao, Goa Pan : Dkzpk5732F . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Director Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr D.E. Robinson [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Smt Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 19/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/06/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; Assessee’S Captioned Appeal Impugns Din & Order 1072026383(1) Dt. 09/01/2025 Passed By Addl//Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-2, Jaipur [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Intimation Dt. 26/11/2021 Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act By Asstt. Direction Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2020-21 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr D.E. Robinson [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Smt Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 90

Madras High Court in the case of ‘Shiva Ind. & Holding Ltd. Vs ACIT’ [2023, 153 taxmann.com 354 (Mad)] considered the case unfit for condonation of delay and in consequence dismissed the appeal in limine as barred by limitation. Faced with the situation, the assessee came in present appeal alleging violation ... Shashikant Kulkarni Vs ADIT ITA Nos.050/PAN/2025 AY: 2020-21 5. Admittedly said appeal was filed without accompanying therewith a petition & an affidavit for condonation of delay stating therein reasons behind such belated filing of appeal. In the absence of such necessitating documents, ostensibly there is much less flaw

Amin Abdul Wahab Kaskar, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ratnagiri

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

ITA 282/PUN/2025[AY 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.282/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Amin Abdul Wahab Kaskar, Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Ratnagiri. House No.961/B, Kaskar Ali, Pag Chiplun, Ratnagiri- 415605. Pan : Dmopk5188L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S. Sadananda Singh Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 09.07.2024 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act For Assessment Year 2012-13 Framed On 06.12.2019 By The Ito, Ward-3, Ratnagiri. 2. When The Case Was Called For None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Even On The Previous Occasions, When The Case Was Fixed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 54F

basis of available records and the assistance of Ld. DR. 3. Registry informed that there is a delay of 123 days. Application for condonation of delay dated 29.01.2025 has been filed. On perusal of the same, I notice that the assessee is stated to be senior citizen and his mobility ... merit can be examined and also observing that the assessee would not have gained by delaying in filing of the instant appeal, condone the delay of 123 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts