← 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

Laxmi Dutt Bhatt, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-3(2), Lucknow

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

ITA 830/LKW/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow03 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.830/Lkw/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2010-11 Laxmi Dutt Bhatt V. Ito-3(2) Range-Iii C-340, Sector-B, Mahanagar, Aaykar Bhawan, Ashok Lucknow-226001. Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Agypb8691B 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: 25 03 2025 घोषणा "क तार"ख/ Date Of 03 04 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 143(2)Section 68

course of hearing, it was noted that the appeal is barred by limitation for one day. 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 ... Revenue did not 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. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case, the assessee filed his return of income

Venkat Reddy Poreddy, Hyderabad vs. Addl.CIT, Ranga-9, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1406/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1406/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Venkat Reddy Poreddy Vs. Addl. C. I. T Hyderabad Rangfe 9 Pan:Aitpp4141L Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Vinod, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31/10/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271D Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 366 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Cause Of Delay. The Learned Ar Of The Assessee Has Submitted That, The Assessee Was Not Aware Of The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Cit (A) & Came To Know About The Same Only On 23/12/2024, When The Assessee Approached His Counsel To Inquire About The Status Of The Appeal Filed Before The Learned Cit

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 271D

settle the dispute under the Direct Tax VSVS Scheme, 2024. 3. On the other hand, the learned DR has vehemently objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that the delay of 366 days is an inordinate delay and the assessee has given very vague reasons of no knowledge ... Thus, the learned DR has submitted that the assessee does not Page 2 of 6 ITA 1406 of 2024 Venkat Reddy Poreddy deserve condonation of delay as the reasons explained by the assessee are not sufficient to condone such an inordinate delay. 4. We have considered the rival submission

Andhra Pragathi Farmers Service Co-Op Society, Ramadurgam vs. ITO, Ward-1, Adoni

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 661/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.661/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Andhra Pragathi Farmers Vs. Income Tax Officer Service Coop. Society, Ward – 1 Ramadurgam Adoni Pan:Aaaar1876J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/04/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)

Andhra Pragathi Farmers Service Coop Society Ramadurgam 8.Thus, in view of the subsequent development of condonation of delay in filing the return of income, the matter requires reconsideration. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above, we recall the impugned order of the Tribunal ... that the assessee has filed the return of income belatedly. He has pointed out that the learned CIT vide order dated 13/12/2023 has condoned the delay in filing the return of income for the year under consideration and therefore, the reason for disallowing the claim