← 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

Vipin Polymers Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(3), New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1231/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1231/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2017-18) Vipin Polymers P. Ltd., C-1/4, Ground Floor, Prashant Vihar, Rohini, Delhi 110085 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacv-9497-P बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-26(3), C R Building, Ito, Ip Estate, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Subodh Jain, Advocate & Shri Samyak Jain, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 21/05/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 21/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 12.02.2024, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 304 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 Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Hence, Delay Of 304 Days In Filing Of Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Jain, Advocate and Shri Samyak Jain, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

dated 12.02.2024, for assessment year 2017-18. 2. The appeal is time barred by 304 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

Vijayalakshmi Daggumalli, Krishna vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Vijayawada

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

ITA 165/VIZ/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.165/Viz/2025 (धनिाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Vijayalakshmi Daggumalli, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Krishna District, Ward-1(3), Andhra Pradesh. Vijayawada. Pan: Cuvpd4504P (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of : 20/05/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan, Am:

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 50CSection 54F

absence of any cogent explanation / reason to substantiate the belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before ... Authorized Representative [AR] submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC ought to have considered the explanation of the assessee with respect to the condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC as the assessee has explained the reasons in Form-35 filed before

Mewa Singh, Panchkula vs. ITO Ward-2, Panchkula

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 448/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 448/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Mewa Singh, Ito, बनाम C/O M K Aggarwal & Ward No.2, Associates Panchkula Vs. Sco 1, First Floor, Sector 11, Panchkula 134113 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Adhps5879H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None (Withdrawal Application) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.05.2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.03.2022 Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2015- 16. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of Four Days In Filing Of The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Counsel

For Appellant: None (Withdrawal Application)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 254(2)

Counsel 448-Chd-2024 Mewa Singh, Panchkula 2 of the Assessee has filed an Affidavit on behalf of the Assessee, making prayer for condonation of delay. The affidavit of the Assessee is as under:- 448-Chd-2024 Mewa Singh, Panchkula 3 4. We have considered the facts and reasoning furnished