← 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

Panchu Ram Bairwa, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(3), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 251/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपील सं. / ITA. No. 251/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years : 2010-11 Shri Panchu Ram Bairwa Bhattiwali Dhani, Purani Chungi Agra Road, Paldi Meena, Jaipur बनाम Vs. The ITO, Ward-5 (3) Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ADUPB 3864 A निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT -DR सुनवाई

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT -DR a
Section 147

days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee has filed an applications dated 21-03-2025 for condonation of delay narrating therein following reasoning:- ‘’1. That the appellant has filed the present appeal before the ITAT against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) dated ... appeal deserves to be condoned. Prayer: In view of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble ITAT may kindly condone the delay of 576 days in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merits.’’ To this effect, the assessee has filed an affidavit

Anop Devi Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 7(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 1330/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No. 1330/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Anop Devi Sharma Plot No. B-3, Dadu Nagar Near Pardaya Hospital, Sanganer, Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम The ITO Vs. Ward 7(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AYSPA 0827 F निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mathur, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Add

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 147Section 250Section 69

that there is delay of 434 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay giving therein the reason that the assessee was suffering with severe Spinal problem and was undergoing physiotherapy session since June, 2022. There ... have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noted that the reasons advanced by the assessee for condonation of delay of 464 days in the present appeal is sufficient to SMT. ANOP DEVI SHARMA VS ITO, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR condone the delay