← 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

Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple Commitee., Khammam vs. CIT (Exemption), Aayakar Bhavan, Basherbagh

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

ITA 544/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.544/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2024-25) Sri Venkateswara Swamy Vs. Commissioner Of Income Temple Committee, Tax (Exemption) Khammam Hyderabad Pan:Aapas6706D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28/11/2024 Of The Learned Cit (E), Hyderabad For The A.Y.2024-25 Whereby The Application Seeking Approval U/S 80G(5) Of The Act Was Rejected.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT(DR)
Section 12ASection 80G(5)

rejected. 2. There is a delay of 55 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which is supported by an affidavit filed by the Treasurer of the assessee trust. Page 1 of 6 ITA 544 of 2025 Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple ... assessee after noticing from the Tax Portal. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR has not raised serious objection to the condonation of delay of 55 days in filing the present appeal. 5. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully perused the contents of the affidavit explaining

Enmas Epc Power Projects Limited, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward-2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 965/CHNY/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 965/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Enmas Epc Power Projects The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs. Corporate Ward-2(1), Old No.484-485, New No.28-30, Chennai. Pantheon Road, 2Nd Floor, Pantheon Plaza, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Pan: Aaecr 3779G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Chandan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Chandan, JCIT
Section 250

Assessment Year is 2012-13. 2. There is a delay of 2 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 is that, the assessee attempted ... appeal manually on 02.04.2025 resulting in a delay of two days. On perusal of the same and due to smallness of delay, 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 order

M/S. the Arni Agri Producers Cooperative Mktg. Society Ltd., Arni vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruvannamalai

ITA 963/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 963/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 The Arni Agri Producers The Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Marketing Vs. Ward 1, Society Ltd., Tiruvannamalai. 383, Market Roa, Arni – 632 301. Pan: Aacat 9589J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate For Shri K. Ravi, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate for Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 250

There is a delay of 61 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 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:- “a. Decisions could ... perusal of the same, we find there is sufficient reason for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The assessee

Subbarayalu Kannan Rajagopal, Chennai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals), Chennai

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

ITA 477/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 477/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2019-20 Shri Subbarayalu Kannan The Income Tax Officer, Rajagopal, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 8(2), No.3, Plot No.42, Chennai Sri Dhanalakshmi Subbaraya, Rajeswari Nagar First Main, Karambakkam, Porur, Chennai – 600 116. Pan: Dtipr 0719H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Chandan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Chandan, JCIT
Section 250

There is a delay of 109 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reason stated in the petition for belated filing is that the assessee is a French Citizen ... time. On perusal of the same, we find there is sufficient reason for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. 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 First Appellate Authority