← 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

Bhavesh Govindbhai Dadhaniya, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Rajkot

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

ITA 762/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 762 /Rjt/ 2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Bhavesh Govindbhai Dadhaniya Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), Rajkot 3-Jasaraj Nagar, B/H. Umiyani Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Chowk, Nr. Umiyaji Pan, 150Ft Ring Road, Ring Road, Mavdi Area, Rajkot – 360001 Rajkot – 360004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpd 6290 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148

lower authorities. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee’s Affidavit/Application dated 06/01/2025 (placed on record) may be considered for condonation of delay and the same is reproduced hereunder: “That the assessment in the my case was finalised vide order u/s. 144 r.w.s.147 of the Income ... provision of section 253(5) of the Act and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra), we take a judicious view to condone the delay and admit the appeal and proceed further for hearing. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR has relied upon the orders

Badhate Kadam Gaushala Sansthan Kekri, Kekri, Ajmer vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1240/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Apr 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. No. 1239 & 1240/JPR/2024 | Badhate Kadam | Gaushala | The CIT Exemption, | Sansthan Kekri | Jaipur. | Suraj Colony Dhand Ka Rastha, | Kekri, Ajmer. | बनाम | Vs. | | स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADTB9576A | अपीलार्थी / Appellant | प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Rajat Choudhary, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Bhanwar Singh Ratnu, CIT सुनवाई क

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Choudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Bhanwar Singh Ratnu, CIT a
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

filing of the appeals by the assessee for Badhate Kadam Gaushala Sansthan Kekri vs. CIT(E) which the assessee filed application for condonation of delay with following prayers supported with an affidavit :- “1. That assessee is a trust and filed 2 appeals on 05.10.2024 against the ex-parte order passed ... cause for delay in filing of appeal. In view of above submission you are requested that kindly consider this as reasonable cause to condone the delay of 483 days and kindly remand back the case to CIT (Exemption), Jaipur. So, that proper inquiry Badhate Kadam Gaushala Sansthan Kekri

Archanaben Rajendrasingh Deval, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, as indicated

ITA 1465/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1465/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Archanaben Rajendrasingh Deval बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Tds Ward-1, Ahmedabad – 380 014 42, Tirth Bhumi Co-Op. Society Near Dhara Soap Factory Nikol Gam Road, Nikol, Ahmedabad – 382 350 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ahzpd 2745 D (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 02/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.03.2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)"], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015–16. The Appeal Arises From The Order Of The Income Tax Officer, Tds Ward-1, Ahmedabad

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

dropped. 8. The assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any grounds of appeals before the appeal finally heard and decided. Condonation of Delay 6. At the outset, the registry has noted that there is a delay of 438 days (494 days as computed by the assessee ... filing the present appeal before us. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit, wherein it is stated that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated 30.03.2023 was never received by her either through email or physical communication. It is explained that the assessee