← 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

Punjab National Bank, New Shimla vs. DCIT(TDS), Panchkula

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 397/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.397/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Punjab National Dcit (Tds) Bankbramta Bhawan, Sector 2, बनाम/ Vs. Sector 1 Himachal Pradesh- Haryana. 171009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No. Ptlpl-2970-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Rakesh Kumar (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Pune [Cit(A)] Dated 15-02-2024 Confirming Certain Demand Raised By Ld. Ao Against The Assessee-Bank U/S 201(1) / 201(1A) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 09-10-2018. 2. Upon Perusal Of Order Of Ld. Ao, It Could Be Seen That The Assessee Paid Interest To Certain State Government Entities Viz. Hp

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Kumar (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr.DR
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 201Section 201(1)

also computed consequential interest u/s 201(1A) for Rs.17.39 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for want of condonation of delay from 19-10- 2018 till 14-03-2020 i.e., till onset of Covid-19 Pandemic. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before

ACIT, Circle-5.1, Kolkata vs. Yadav Prasad Tosniwal, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1730/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1730/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2010-2011) Acit, Circle-5.1, Kolkata Vs Yadav Prasad Tosniwal, 638, Basanmoyee Apartment Rabindra Sarani, Bagbazar, Kolkata-700003 Pan No. :Acipt6576E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. राजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Ms. Madhumita Sas, Addl.Cit नििााररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Kejriwal, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 18.03.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. As Per The Office Record, It Is Noted That The Appeal Is Filed Belatedly By 89 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed Condonation Application Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay. Considering The Reasons Stated In The Application Of The Revenue, The Delay Of 89 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- 1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Additions To The Tune Of Rs 17,75,988/- Made U/S 68 Of The I.T. Act Made On Account Of Unaccounted Transactions, Ignoring The Evidences Brought On Record By The Assessing Officer To Establish That The Genuineness Of The Transaction & Creditworthiness Could Not Be Satisfactorily Proved In This Case?

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Kejriwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Madhumita Sas, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 68

that the appeal is filed belatedly by 89 days. In this regard, the revenue has filed condonation application stating therein sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. Considering the reasons stated in the application of the revenue, the delay of 89 days in filing the present appeal is condoned