← 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

P & R Engineering Services Private Limited., New Delhi vs. Circle 19(1), Delhi, DCIT, New Delhi, India

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4537/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] P & R Engineering Service Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd., 89, Lok Nayak Circle-19(1) Apartment, Rohini Courts, New Delhi S.O. Rohini Courts, North West Delhi, New Delhi- 110085. Pan-Aaccp0484E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri V.K. Agarwal, Ar & Shri Hrithik Lamba, Adv. Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.07.2025 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10031831 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 11.02.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R. W. Sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Has Claimed Deduction U/S 80-Ia Of The Act Of Inr 5,62,48,491/- Which Was Disallowed By The Ao For The Sole Reason That The Return Of Income Was Filed Belatedly On 30.03.2019 Though The Same Has To Be Filed Upto 31.10.2018 In Terms Of The Due Date As Per Section 139(1) Of The Act. Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Said Disallowance & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee.

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 801ASection 80ASection 80I

consequent order of ld. PCIT, Delhi-7 giving effect u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act to the order passed by CBDT condoning the delay in filing the Income tax return by the assessee for the assessment year before us. As per the approval by CBDT, delay in filing ... revived. 5. It is further seen that in the order passed by CBDT dated 01.12.2025 in para 3, it is stated that the condonation of delay in filing ITR will not amount to acceptance of claims made in the concerned ITR of the applicant and the AO shall deal with

S.D Education Society, Karnal vs. DCIT Exemption, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1088/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1087 & 1088/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 S.D. Education Society, The Dcit (Exemptions), S.D. Model Sr. Section. School, Vs Chandigarh. Railway Road, Karnal. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabas5001P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Girish Aneja, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Girish Aneja, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Registry has pointed out that appeals are time barred by 239 days. In order to explain the delay, assessee has filed application for condonation of delay. In the application, ITA No.1087 & 1088/CHD/2025 A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 2 assessee has pleaded that Shri Gulshan Dua was looking after all the financial matters ... also been used identically in sub- section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction

S.D Education Society, Karnal vs. DCIT Exemption, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1087/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1087 & 1088/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 S.D. Education Society, The Dcit (Exemptions), S.D. Model Sr. Section. School, Vs Chandigarh. Railway Road, Karnal. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabas5001P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Girish Aneja, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Girish Aneja, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Registry has pointed out that appeals are time barred by 239 days. In order to explain the delay, assessee has filed application for condonation of delay. In the application, ITA No.1087 & 1088/CHD/2025 A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 2 assessee has pleaded that Shri Gulshan Dua was looking after all the financial matters ... also been used identically in sub- section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction