← 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

Bengal Education Foundation, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Exemption, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 199/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.199/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bengal Education Foundation…………….………………………..………….……Appellant 17/1, Rishi Bankim Chandra Road, Dum Dum, Kol-28. [Pan: Aactb1869Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), Exemption, Kolkata…..……....….….. ……………….........…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 20, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.12.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Public Charitable Trust & Had Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2022-23 In Itr-7 On 02.11.2022 Under The Status Of Aop/Boi By Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Exemption U/S 11 Of The Act Amounting To Rs.1,15,12,715/-. The Said Return Of Income Was Processed By Cpc & Vide Intimation Order Dated 31.03.2023 A Demand Of Rs.50,28,260/- Had Been Raised After Denying The Assessee’S Claim Of Exemption U/S 11 Of The Act Made In The Return Of Income. Before Passing Of The Intimation Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act, The Cpc Had Sent Communication To The Assessee On 14.02.2023 Intimating The Proposed Adjustments.

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 250

instant case is whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC was justified in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee thereby condoning the delay in filing the Form 10B of the Act. The learned Tribunal after going through the facts of the case took note of the latter ... issued under Section 119(2)(b) by which the powers delegated to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/Commissioner of Income Tax to condone the delay in filing Form 10B beyond 365 days up to 3 years from the assessment year 2018-19 or for subsequent year. Applying the said

Shah Hasan, Uttar Pradesh vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 798/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.798/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2012-13) Shah Hasan, 157, Mushtarak Miranpur, Jansath, Uttar Pradesh 251315 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Airph-7471-F बनाम Vs. National Faceless Appeal Center, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Delhi 110001 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 20/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against An Ex-Parte Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 19.10.2023, For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 408 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 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

dated 19.10.2023, for assessment year 2012-13. 2. The appeal is time barred by 408 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

Bhupesh Ravinder Datt Sharma, Australia vs. ITO, Ward- 2(85), Delhi

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

ITA 1306/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1306/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2016-17) Bhupesh Ravinder Datt Sharma, 16A, Fisher Street, Victoria, Australia 314500 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Augps-4400-A बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-28(5), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 20/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 19.12.2024, For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Filed Return Of Income U/S. 139 Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Impugned Assessment Year Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,11,370/-. The Return Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny, Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The Act Dated 14.07.2017 Was Issued To The Assessee. Despite Service Of Aforesaid Notice, The Assessee Failed To Respond To The Same. The Assessing Officer (Ao)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 5Section 68

Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 has held that liberal approach should be adopted while dealing with an application praying for condonation of delay. Refusing to condone 3 delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Pedantic ... hyper technical approach should not be adopted while dealing with an application for condonation of delay. 3.2 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others (2002) 3 SCC 195/AIR 2002 SC 1201 has held that the expression