← 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

Smiles Foundation, Satara vs. CIT Exemption Pune, Pune

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

ITA 379/PUN/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.379/Pun/2025 Smiles Foundation, Vs. Cit, Exemption, Pune. Shop No.2, 167/A170, Sushila Vasant Vihar, Mangalwarpeth, Satara- 415002. Pan : Aasts2069K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prafull Suresh Shaha Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit, Exemption, Pune Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12Ab Of The It Act. 2. There Is A Delay Of 104 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit. We Are Satisfied With The Explanation Of The Assessee That He Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Not Filing The Present Appeal Within Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Raised

For Appellant: Shri Prafull Suresh ShahaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

There is a delay of 104 days in filing of the present appeal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit. We are satisfied with the explanation of the assessee that he was prevented by reasonable cause for not filing

ACIT, CC-4(1), Kolkata vs. Sanjeev Kejriwal, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the revenue in IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 2206/KOL/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील (तलाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं/It(Ss)A Nos.97 To 100/Kol/2024 & आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1702/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा /A.Ys.2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2012-13 & 2010-11) Rajputana General Commercial Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata Vs Corporation Private Limited 33B, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Aabcr 2016 H & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2206/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा /A.Ys.2018-2019) Sanjeev Kejriwal Acit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata Vs 6/1B, Palm Avenue, Kolkata Pan No. :Aevpk 7424 H (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Shri Nicholas Murmu, Sr. Dr & Shri Manas Mondal, Sr.Dr निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Dated 24.04.24, 31.05.24 & 03.06.24, Passed In The Case Of The Above Two Assessees By The Cit(A), Kolkata-27, For The Assessment Years 2010-2011, 2012-2013, 2014-2015, 2016-2017, 2017-2018 & 2018-2019, Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)

No.100/Kol/2024 is delayed by 02 days and ITA No.1702/Kol/2024 is delayed by 12 days for which the revenue has filed the applications for condonation of delay, wherein the revenue has provided the details of the dates in which the appeals were processed. The revenue has provided the reasons

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4(1), Kolkata, Income Tax vs. Rajputana General Commercial Corporation Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the revenue in IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 1702/KOL/2024[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील (तलाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं/It(Ss)A Nos.97 To 100/Kol/2024 & आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1702/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा /A.Ys.2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2012-13 & 2010-11) Rajputana General Commercial Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata Vs Corporation Private Limited 33B, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Aabcr 2016 H & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2206/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा /A.Ys.2018-2019) Sanjeev Kejriwal Acit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata Vs 6/1B, Palm Avenue, Kolkata Pan No. :Aevpk 7424 H (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Shri Nicholas Murmu, Sr. Dr & Shri Manas Mondal, Sr.Dr निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Dated 24.04.24, 31.05.24 & 03.06.24, Passed In The Case Of The Above Two Assessees By The Cit(A), Kolkata-27, For The Assessment Years 2010-2011, 2012-2013, 2014-2015, 2016-2017, 2017-2018 & 2018-2019, Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)

No.100/Kol/2024 is delayed by 02 days and ITA No.1702/Kol/2024 is delayed by 12 days for which the revenue has filed the applications for condonation of delay, wherein the revenue has provided the details of the dates in which the appeals were processed. The revenue has provided the reasons