← 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

Kailas Genbhau Kalekar, Pune vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2685/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2685/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kailas Genbhau Kalekar, V The Dcit, (Prop. Bhairavnath Milk S Central Circle-2(3), Pune. Processors), At Post – Kadus Taluka – Khed, Dist-Pune – 412404. Pan: Ccmpk1533J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P Bora & Sampada Ingale – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Amil Khairnar –Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 25/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 28.11.2024 For Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 250Section 251(2)

above grounds of appeal.” Submission of ld.AR : 2. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee submitted that ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal. 2.1 Ld.AR for the Assessee submitted an Affidavit to explain the reason for delay. Ld.AR submitted that there was sufficient reason ... order was u/s.144 of the Act. 4.1 In this case, assessee had filed an Affidavit before the ld.CIT(A) with a request to condone the delay. We have perused the Affidavit and are of the considered opinion that there was sufficient ITA No.2685/PUN/2024 [A] reason for delay. No assessee will

Rajkunwar Bahuudeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha, Jalna vs. CIT (E), Pune

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

ITA 1468/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1468/Pun/2024 Rajkunwar Bahuuddeshiya Vs. Cit, Exemption, Pune. Sevabhavi Sanstha, Yashwant Nagar, Ambad Road, Jalna- 431203. Pan : Aactr4529B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing 21.04.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.01.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit, Exemption, Pune Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12Ab Of The It Act. 2. There Is A Delay Of 110 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 No Serious Objection To The Condonation Request

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(as)Section 36ASection 36A(3)

There is a delay of 110 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4(1), Kolkata vs. Sendoz Commercials Private Limited, Kolkata

The appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 28/KOL/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.28/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata ………………………………….…..……Appellant Vs. Sendoz Commercials Pvt. Ltd…………..……...........……........……...…..…..Respondent 644, Marshall House, 25, Strand Road, Kol-1. [Pan: Aagcs5174E] C.O. No.12/Kol/2025 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.28/Kol/2025) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sendoz Commercials Pvt. Ltd …………..………….………………..….…..Cross-Objector 644, Marshall House, 25, Strand Road, Kol-1. [Pan: Aagcs5174E] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata.............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tulsyan, Fca & Deepak Mudhra, Aca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 30, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal & The Assessee Has Filed The Corresponding Cross-Objection Against The Same Order Dated 27.08.2024 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 37 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Revenue Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case.

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

Registry has informed that there is a delay of 37 days in filing the present appeal. The revenue filed an application for condonation of delay stating reasons for such delay. After considering the application, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and adjudicate the appeal on merits

M/S.Thiru Kumaarh Hardwares, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(6), Chennai

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

ITA 589/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.589/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Thiru Kumaarh Hardwares, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1A, Anjugambal Street, 100 Feet Road, Non Corporate Ward 19(6), Thanthai Periyar Nagar, Tatamani, Chennai. Chennai 600 013. [Pan:Aaeft8378E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vishwa Padmanabhan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.10.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 424 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit Along With Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination

For Appellant: Shri Vishwa Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 424 days. The assessee filed an affidavit along with petition for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination 2 I.T.A. No.589/Chny/25 of the said petition, we find the reasons stated by the assessee

M/S. Alert Security Services, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Ncc-4, Coimbatore

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

ITA 586/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.586/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Alert Security Services, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 106, Sowrimuthu Street, Red Fields, Income Tax, Coimbatore 641 045. Non Corporate Circle 4, [Pan:Aasfa2624E] Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.11.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 765 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay By Stating Following Reasons: 1. That The Petitioner Operates As A Partnership Firm Under The Trade Name M/S. Alert Security Services Filed His Return Of Income For The Said Assessment Year On 2

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250

year 2018-19. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 765 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay by stating following reasons: 1. That the petitioner operates as a partnership firm under the trade name M/s. ALERT SECURITY SERVICES filed his return ... appeal. 3. The ld. AR Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA, by referring to the above reasons stated in the affidavit, prayed for condoning the delay and admits the appeal for adjudication. 4. The ld. DR Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT submits that the first main reason stated in the affidavit

Marappa Gounder Balakrishnan, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Tiruppur

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

ITA 585/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.585/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Marappa Gounder Balakrishnan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Door No. 13A, 1 Paramasivampalayam, Ward 2(1), Vayakkadu Thottam, Somanur, Tiruppur. Tiruppur 641 663. [Pan:Arypb4707C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 242 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

year 2013-14. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 242 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, 2 I.T.A. No.585/Chny/25 we find the reasons stated

Karra & Co., Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 581/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.581/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Karra & Co., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of “Anugraha”, New No. 28, Income Tax, Murrays Gate Road, Alwarpet, Non Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafk3000E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.02.2024 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Pune, For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 303 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit Along With Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons, Which Are Reproduced Herein Below: “I, Prem Karra, Managing Partner Of M/S. Karma & Co, Having Its Registered Office At 28. Anugraha, Murrays Gate Road, Alwarpet, Chennai - 600 018 Do Hereby Solemnly Affirm & State:

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 250

find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 303 days. The assessee filed an affidavit along with petition for condonation of delay stating the reasons, which are reproduced herein below: “I, Prem Karra, Managing Partner of M/s. Karma & Co, having its registered office at 28. Anugraha, Murrays Gate ... Appeals). Shri.T. Banusekar, Advocate advised the petitioner that an appeal can be filed against the said order along with a petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal. I then requested the office of Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate to draft the appeal. 3 I.T.A. No.581/Chny/25 11. That the appeal

Srinivasan Varatharaj, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncw-10(1), Chennai

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

ITA 579/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.579/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Srinivasan Varatharaj, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 11, Kandan Street, Perambur S.O., Income Tax, Perambur, Chennai 600 011. Non Corporate Ward 10(1), Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Avjps1866L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Sricharan, Ca & : Ms. Srinithi, Advocate For Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 27 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Petition, We

For Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 194ISection 69

year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 27 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said petition, we 2 I.T.A. No.579/Chny/25 find the reasons stated

Jcr Traders, Keelamathur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1) Trichy, Trichy

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

ITA 333/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.333/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jcr Traders, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 2/117, Thittakudi Road, Income Tax, Keelamathur, Tamil Nadu 621 173. Circle 1(1), Trichy. [Pan:Aalfj6942K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Deeptha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.08.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 93 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Deeptha, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 40Section 69

year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 93 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, 2 I.T.A. No.333/Chny/25 we find the reasons stated

Dr Anbu Selvan, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 332/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.332/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dr. Anbu Selvan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 323, Paper Mills Road, Perambur, Non Corporate Ward 10(1), Chennai 600 011. Chennai. [Pan:Bnqpa3351L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A. Mohamed Shakeer, Advocate & Shri B. Harish, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Deeptha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 279 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri A. Mohamed Shakeer, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Deeptha, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271

year 2016-17. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 279 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee