← 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

Kandasamy Duraisamy, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

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

ITA 356/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.356/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vs Shri Kandasamy Duraisamy, The Income Tax Officer, 6/9, Pidaripatty, Ward 2, Pachal Post, Namakkal. Namakkal Taluk – 637 018. Pan : Badpd 3679Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.05.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per S R Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 22.11.2024 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 3 Days In Appeal Filed By The Assessee, For Which Petition For Condonation Of Delay

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi VenkatramanFor Respondent: Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 144

outset, we find that there is a delay of 3 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay - 2 - ITA No.356/Chny/2025 along with reasons for delay has been filed. After considering the petition filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties

Sundar Rayar, Puducherry vs. ITO, Ward-3, Puducherry

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

ITA 355/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vs Shri Sundar Rayar, The Income Tax Officer, 2, Voc Street, Ward 3, Roja Nagar, Puducherry. Arumbathapuram, Puducherry – 605 010. Pan : Btfps 2282H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.05.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per S R Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 04.07.2023 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 492 Days In Appeal Filed By The Assessee, For Which Petition For Condonation Of Delay

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi VenkatramanFor Respondent: Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 144

outset, we find that there is a delay of 492 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay - 2 - ITA No.355/Chny/2025 along with reasons for delay has been filed. After considering the petition filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties

Chinnappan Balumahendran, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(8), Salem

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

ITA 352/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.352/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vs Shri Chinnappan Balumahendran, The Income Tax Officer, No.3-300, Ward No.3, Ward 1(8), Kundokkal, Jodukuli Post, Salem. Omalur Taluk, Salem – 636 351. Pan : Birpb 5044D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.05.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per S R Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 26.09.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 431 Days In Appeal Filed By The Assessee, For Which Petition For Condonation Of Delay

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi VenkatramanFor Respondent: Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 144

outset, we find that there is a delay of 431 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay - 2 - ITA No.352/Chny/2025 along with reasons for delay has been filed. After considering the petition filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties

Palanimuthu Pandiyan, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(9), Salem

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

ITA 351/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vs Shri Palanimuthu Pandiyan, The Income Tax Officer, Prop: S C P Motors, Ward 1(9), No.7, Angalamman Koil Street, Salem Pethanaikenpalayam, Attur, Salem – 636 109. Pan : Amspp 8297L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.05.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per S R Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 27.06.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 156 Days In Appeal Filed By The Assessee, For Which Petition For Condonation Of Delay

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi VenkatramanFor Respondent: Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 144

outset, we find that there is a delay of 156 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay - 2 - ITA No.351/Chny/2025 along with reasons for delay has been filed. After considering the petition filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties