← 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

Deepali Dilip Dhumale, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Kudal

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 48/PUN/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deepali Dilip Dhumale, V The Income Tax Officer, 312 1, Sanchayani Bhavann S Kudal. Samor, Bazarpeth Kankavali, Sindhudurg – 416602. Maharashtra. Pan: Aeypd8193H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bharat Raichandani –Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri P R Mane – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/04/2025 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 25.10.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned

Section 250

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and in fact in disallowing the condonation of delay, despite there being sufficient cause with the appellant for not filing of appeal in time. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and in fact in disallowing ... condonation of delay and dismissing the appeal of the appellant on technical grounds and not deciding the matter on merit. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and in fact, in making the addition of 6,66,43,563/- and not taking into consideration that

Enayat Ebadat Hussain, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 161/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.161/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Enayat Ebadat Hussain, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.34, Gut No.20, Near S Ward-1(1), Nashik. Noori Masjid, Chunchale Amdar Satpur Ambad Link Roadk, Nashik – 422010. Maharashtra. Pan: Acdph9890C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare –Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/04/2025 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 29.11.2024 For Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 250Section 68

following grounds of appeal : ITA No.161/PUN/2025 [A] “1 The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing appeal by not condoning the delay when the appellant was prevented by reasons beyond his control 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition ... broadly be culled out are: i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. ITA No.161/PUN/2025 [A] ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should

Mr. Anguraju Sengottuvelan, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1, Salem

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

ITA 567/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.567/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Anguraju Sengottuvelan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, Maruthi Vilas, North Street, Ward 1(3), High School Road, Velur, Salem. Namakkal 638 182. [Pan:Aysps6739A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""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 : 25.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 210 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: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

year 2011-12. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 210 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.567/Chny/25 we find the reasons stated ... assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 751 days. The ld. CIT(A), considering the Covid lockdown, condoned the delay and proceeded to dispose the appeal on merits. The ld. CIT(A) issued 4 notices to the assessee, which are reflecting at page

Kpm Central Co-Op Bank Emp Co-Op Society Ltd., Kancheepuram vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kancheepuram

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

ITA 373/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.373/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vs M/S. Kpm Central Co-Op Bank The Income Tax Officer, Emp. Co-Op Society Ltd., Ward 1, No.1 & 2 Sheikpet Nadu Street, Kancheepuram – 631 501. Kanchipuram – 631 501. Pan : Aadak 6961G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Reddi Prakash, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 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 28.10.2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 36 Days In Appeal Filed By The Assessee, For Which Petition For Condonation Of Delay

For Appellant: Shri Reddi Prakash, CAFor Respondent: Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 144Section 148Section 69CSection 80P

outset, we find that there is a delay of 36 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay - 2 - ITA No.373/Chny/2025 along with reasons for delay has been filed. After considering the petition filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties

M/S. Securekloud Technologies Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3232/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3232/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S. Securekloud Technologies Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Bascon Futura Sv 5Th Floor, Corporate Circle 3(1), 10/1 Venkatanarayana Road, T. Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aabcp6266D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M.V. Swaroop, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 27.09.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 18 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 M.V. Swaroop, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

year 2021-22. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 18 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Southern Health Foods Private Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 2237/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2237/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Southern Health Foods Private Income Tax, Limited, Khivraj Complex-1, Corporate Circle 3(1), Third Floor No. 477- 480, Chennai Nandanam, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 035. [Pan:Aarcs3296E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Easwar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Srikanth, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.06.2024 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 11 Days. The Appellant - Revenue Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said

For Appellant: Shri S. Easwar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri G. Srikanth, C.A
Section 68

find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 11 days. The Appellant - Revenue filed a petition for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said 2 I.T.A. No.2237/Chny/24 petition, we find the reasons stated by the Revenue are bonafide