← 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

Jyoti Ranjan Roy Represented by Limited Guardian Suvajit Roy, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 50, Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 963/KOL/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.963/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy Represented By Limited Guardian Suvajit Roy.............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan:Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.314/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.261/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Dcit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent

Section 250Section 253(3)Section 68

Misc. Case No.74/2023 in Suvajit Roy (petitioner) and Debashree Roy Biswas and Others (Consentee petitioner). The instant petition is being filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 31.12.2009, passed u/s 250 of the Act before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. counsel of the assessee ... WBNP01-002174-2023) in Suvajit Roy (Petitioner) and Debshree Roy Biswas and Others (Consentee Petitioner). The instant petition is being filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal againstthe order dated December 31, 2009, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Jyoti Ranjan Roy(Limited Guaredian -Suvajit Roy), Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 49(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 261/KOL/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.963/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy Represented By Limited Guardian Suvajit Roy.............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan:Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.314/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.261/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Dcit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent

Section 250Section 253(3)Section 68

Misc. Case No.74/2023 in Suvajit Roy (petitioner) and Debashree Roy Biswas and Others (Consentee petitioner). The instant petition is being filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 31.12.2009, passed u/s 250 of the Act before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. counsel of the assessee ... WBNP01-002174-2023) in Suvajit Roy (Petitioner) and Debshree Roy Biswas and Others (Consentee Petitioner). The instant petition is being filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal againstthe order dated December 31, 2009, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Taro, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward- 1, Panipat

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

ITA 1352/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1352/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2012-13) Smt. Taro, C/O J B Sharma, Advocate, 72, Bmk Market, Nr Hotel Hive, G T Road, Panipat, Haryana 132103 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Alspt-7680-C बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Panipat, Haryana 132103 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 22/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against An Ex-Parte Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 06.05.2024, For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 216 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Seeking Condonation Of Delay In Filing Of Appeal Supported By An Affidavit. After Perusing The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Present Appeal Is Un-Intentional & Was For The Reasons Stated In The Application

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

dated 06.05.2024, for assessment year 2012-13. 2. The appeal is time barred by 216 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of appeal supported by an affidavit. After perusing the application for condonation of delay, I am satisfied that delay in filing