← 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

Paramjot Kaur, Punjab vs. The Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for Statistical Purposes

ITA 995/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 995/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Paramjot Kaur, The Ito, 2208, Phase Vii, बनाम Chandigarh Sector 61, Vs. Mohali 160062 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No. Aiapk8703A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Harish Nayyar, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15.01.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am :

For Appellant: Sh. Harish Nayyar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Counsel of the Assessee has filed an application along with Affidavit on behalf of 995-Chd-2025 2 the Assessee, making prayer for condonation of delay. The affidavit of the Assessee is as under: 995-Chd-2025 3 995-Chd-2025 4 3. We have considered the reasons given ... Application / Affidavit and keeping in view the facts and circumstances mentioned therein, we are inclined to condone the delay. 995-Chd-2025 5 4. The ld. DR did not have any objection for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed

Emmbros Autocomp Limited, Baddi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Parwanoo

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1172/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1172/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Emmbros Autocomp The Acit, बनाम Limited, Village Katha, Circle, Baddi, Parwanoo Vs. Distt. Solan 173220 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaace3489Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Raman Tiwari, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Varadhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemptions [‘(Cit(A)’]

For Appellant: Sh. Raman Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Varadhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 801CSection 80I

facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per the provisions of the law, the learned CIT (Appeals) grossly erred in not condoning the delay of 79 days against the order passed under section 271(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. DCIT, Circle, Parwanoo irrespective ... mentioning therein the reason for delay in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble CIT (Appeals). So your honour is requested to please condone the delay in filing of appeal before learned CIT (Appeals). 4. The Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi grossly erred in not considering the appeal irrespective

Sricharan Devineni, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1573/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia(In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1559/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2023-24) Nagalakshmi Devineni, Hyderabad. Pan: Afnpd6112N Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) (In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1563/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2021-22) Sri Venkat Devineni, Hyderabad. Pan: Alipd6384R Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1573/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2022-23) Sricharan Devineni, Hyderabad. Pan: Bgjpd6383B Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाताकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्वकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाईसमाप्तहोनेकीतिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement

Section 1Section 132

this Tribunal. The appeals pertain to three different assessees. In respect of the said delay, each assessee has filed a separate petition seeking condonation of delay, duly supported by separate affidavits of their common counsel, Shri Suresh Gannamani, Partner of M/s NSVR & Associates LLP. In the respective condonation petitions ... deliberate, but occurred due to the aforesaid bona fide circumstances. Accordingly, a prayer has been made in each of the cases to condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) fairly submitted that the Revenue has no objection

Sri Venkat Devineni, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1563/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia(In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1559/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2023-24) Nagalakshmi Devineni, Hyderabad. Pan: Afnpd6112N (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) (In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1563/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2021-22) Sri Venkat Devineni, Hyderabad. Pan: Alipd6384R (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad. (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1573/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2022-23) Sricharan Devineni, Hyderabad. Pan: Bgjpd6383B (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad. (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाताकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्वकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाईसमाप्तहोनेकीतिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement

Section 132

this Tribunal. The appeals pertain to three different assessees. In respect of the said delay, each assessee has filed a separate petition seeking condonation of delay, duly supported by separate affidavits of their common counsel, Shri Suresh Gannamani, Partner of M/s NSVR & Associates LLP. In the respective condonation petitions ... deliberate, but occurred due to the aforesaid bona fide circumstances. Accordingly, a prayer has been made in each of the cases to condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) fairly submitted that the Revenue has no objection

Nagalakshmi Devineni, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1559/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia(In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1559/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2023-24) Nagalakshmi Devineni, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(2), Pan: Afnpd6112N Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) (In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1563/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2021-22) Sri Venkat Devineni, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(2), Pan: Alipd6384R Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) (In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1573/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2022-23) Sricharan Devineni, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(2), Pan: Bgjpd6383B Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar Department Represented By

Section 132Section 132(4)

this Tribunal. The appeals pertain to three different assessees. In respect of the said delay, each assessee has filed a separate petition seeking condonation of delay, duly supported by separate affidavits of their common counsel, Shri Suresh Gannamani, Partner of M/s NSVR & Associates LLP. In the respective condonation petitions ... deliberate, but occurred due to the aforesaid bona fide circumstances. Accordingly, a prayer has been made in each of the cases to condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) fairly submitted that the Revenue has no objection

Thangaraj, Kovilpatti vs. ITO, Ward-2, Tuticorin

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

ITA 2548/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2548/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Thangaraj, The Income Tax Officer, 9, Middle Street, Vs. Ward 2, Kalugumalai, Tuticorin. Kovilpatti – 627 752. Pan: Ahmpt 5181A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri K. Balasubramanian, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri K. BalasubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 250

letter to the assessee. But the assessee has not filed his reply and hence, the FAA had dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 3. The Ld.AR submitted that due to prolonged illness and subsequent death of assessee’s parents, assessee could not attend ... rival submissions and perused the material on record. The appeal filed by the assessee has been dismissed by the FAA in limine without condoning the delay of 597 days. Admittedly, the assessee had not filed the condonation petition, though the FAA had issued notice. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted