← 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

Sandeep Kumar Gupta, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 29(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sandeep Kr. Gupta ……………...……………………………..….……….Appellant 27/H/2, Gobra Gorasthan Road, Kolkata – 46. [Pan: Agspg8435F] Vs. Ito, Ward-29(1), Kolkata……..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Indranil Banerjee, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 01, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 21.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 336 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.7,63,000/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

Registry has informed that there is a delay of 336 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating reasons for such delay. After considering the application, we find reasonable cause and condone the delay in filing the appeal and adjudicate

Sanjay Banik, Hooghly vs. I.T.O., Ward- 23(1), Hooghly

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2352/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2351 To 2353/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2015-16) Sanjay Banik, Vs Ito, Ward-23(1), Hooghly 56, Stn Sarani, Po:Saradapally Ps : Bhadreswar, Hooghly Pan No. :Aegpb 3460 B (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Susanta Shah, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/05/2025

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Susanta Shah, Sr. DR

filed belatedly by 1280 days each while one is late by 60 days and in this regard, ld. AR has filed application for condonation of delay supported by affidavit stating the reasons which are 2 ITA No.2351-2353/KOL/2024 plausible and are not found to be false. Though ... objected to condone the delay in filing all the three appeals, however, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is a non-speaking order, therefore, we condone the delay of 1280 days delay each

Sanjay Banik, Hooghly vs. I.T.O., Ward-23(1), Hooghly

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2351/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2351 To 2353/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2015-16) Sanjay Banik, Vs Ito, Ward-23(1), Hooghly 56, Stn Sarani, Po:Saradapally Ps : Bhadreswar, Hooghly Pan No. :Aegpb 3460 B (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Susanta Shah, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/05/2025

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Susanta Shah, Sr. DR

filed belatedly by 1280 days each while one is late by 60 days and in this regard, ld. AR has filed application for condonation of delay supported by affidavit stating the reasons which are 2 ITA No.2351-2353/KOL/2024 plausible and are not found to be false. Though ... objected to condone the delay in filing all the three appeals, however, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is a non-speaking order, therefore, we condone the delay of 1280 days delay each

Iog and Govt. Hospital for Women and Children Employee Co-Op Thrift, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 400/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 400/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 Iog & Govt. Hospital For The Income Tax Officer, Women & Children Employee Vs. Ward 9(1), Cooperative Thrift 2 Credit Chennai. Society, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai -600 008. Pan: Aabai 0168F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.05.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 250

Assessment Year is 2016-17. 2. There is a delay of 7 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed affidavit for condonation of delay, stating therein the reason for belated filing of this appeal. The reasons stated in the affidavit for belated filing is that the assessee ... time. There is sufficient reason and no latches can be attributed to the assessee for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. At the time of hearing, we noticed that the Ld.AR