← 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

Shruparak Educational and Medical Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exem. Ward 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 927/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalshruparak Educational & Medical Ito (Exem.) Ward – 2(3) Trust, 702, Anne Ville, 30Th Road, Room No. 617, Cumballa T.P.S. 3, Bandra (W), Hills, Mtnl-Te Building, Vs. Mumbai – 400 050. Pedder Road, Dr Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Pan: Aabts 7822 F Mumbai – 400026. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar, Advicate Revenue By : Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Dated 09.06.2023 For A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar, AdvicateFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 254(1)

that the appeal of assessee may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, ld. Sr. (DR) for the Revenue on the plea of condonation of delay by assessee, submits that assessee has not explained the delay in a proper way. The assessee is relying on self-served story. On merit ... rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. Firstly, we are considering the plea of condonation of delay in filing appeal. The primary contention of ld. AR of the assessee is that at the time of filing appeal before

Mahendra Kumar Gupta, Indore vs. ACIT Circle-2(1), Raipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 138/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Raipur17 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.137/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mahendra Kumar Gupta Huf 404, Suraj Villa, 9/2, New Palasia, Indore (M.P)-452 001 Pan: Aaghm8528M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.138/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mahendra Kumar Gupta 404, Suraj Villa, 9/2, New Palasia, Indore (M.P)-452 001 Pan: Adcpg7886K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent : Mrs. Shelly Maheshwari, Ca Shri Ashish Goyal, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr

For Respondent: Mrs. Shelly Maheshwari, CA
Section 5

Ambikapur (supra) had held that a justice oriented and liberal approach be adopted while considering the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. That in the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 3. case of Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil ... No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025, the Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 regarding the condonation of delay in respect of case of land acquisition has observed and held on the aspect of delay that although the delay cannot be condoned without

Mahendra Kumar Gupta HUF, Indore vs. ACIT Circle-2(1), Raipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 137/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Raipur17 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.137/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mahendra Kumar Gupta Huf 404, Suraj Villa, 9/2, New Palasia, Indore (M.P)-452 001 Pan: Aaghm8528M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.138/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mahendra Kumar Gupta 404, Suraj Villa, 9/2, New Palasia, Indore (M.P)-452 001 Pan: Adcpg7886K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent : Mrs. Shelly Maheshwari, Ca Shri Ashish Goyal, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr

For Respondent: Mrs. Shelly Maheshwari, CA
Section 5

Ambikapur (supra) had held that a justice oriented and liberal approach be adopted while considering the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. That in the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 3. case of Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil ... No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025, the Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 regarding the condonation of delay in respect of case of land acquisition has observed and held on the aspect of delay that although the delay cannot be condoned without

Hariram Hospital, Alwar vs. PCIT, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1535/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1535/JPR/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hariram Hospital Bye Pass Road Hariram Hospital Bhiwadi, Alwar – 310 019 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The Pr.CIT (Central) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFFH 5746 M अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Himanshu Goyal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Da

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

assessee for which the 4 HARIRAM HOSPITAL, ALWAR VS PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR assessee has filed an application dated 05-03-2025 for condonation of delay giving therein following reasons: ‘’1. That the present appeal has been filed against the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, passed ... such litigant. Further, the length of delay is immaterial, it is the acceptability of the explanation and that is the only criteria for condoning the delay.” 9. Your Honor, it is imperative to emphasize that neither the assessee nor its consultant had any deliberate or negligent intent in the delayed

Shri Ramesh Singh Rana, Lucknow vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 576/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow17 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.576/Lkw/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Ramesh Singh Rana V. Dcit Range-4 3-B, Talkatora Road, Rajaji 5-Ashok Marg, Aaykar Puram, Lucknow-226017. Bhawan, Lucknow- 226001. Pan:Aggpr0749B अपीलाथ"/(Appellant) ""यथ"/(Respondent) अपीलाथ" "क और से/Appellant By: None ""यथ" "क और से /Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई "क तार"ख / Date Of Hearing: 08 04 2025 घोषणा "क तार"ख/ Date Of 17 04 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R Per Anadee Nath Misshra, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Lucknow Dated 11.06.2019, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 133(3)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

liable to deleted.” 2. The appeal is barred by limitation by 53 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. The application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue ... express any objection to the delay being condoned. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing of this appeal and admit the appeal for decision on merits. 3. In this case, assessment order dated 29/03/2015 was passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”, for short), u/s 143(3) of the Income