← 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

Shri Swami Samarth Educational and Charitable Trust, Bahadurgarh vs. CIT(E), Chandigarh

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

ITA 3116/DEL/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआअसं.3116/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2024-25) Shri Swami Samarth Educational & Charitable Trust, Vpo Ladrawan, Tehsil Bahdurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana 124507 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aazts-1288-F बनाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) C R Building, Himalya Marg, Sector 17-E, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Chandigarh 160017 Assessee By : Shri Navin Gupta, Advocate Department By : Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 24/03/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 24/03/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against An Ex-Parte Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(E)') Dated 24.02.2023, Whereby Application Of The Assessee For Grant Of Registration U/S. 12A Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Was Rejected. 2. This Appeal Is Time Barred By 429 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit Citing Reasons For Delay In Filing Of Appeal. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Notices Issued By The Cit(E) & The Impugned Order Passed By The Cit(E) Were Never Served On The Assessee. Hence

For Appellant: Shri Navin Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT(DR)
Section 12ASection 5

Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 has held that liberal approach should be adopted while dealing with an application praying for condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Pedantic ... hyper technical approach should not be adopted while dealing with an application for condonation of delay. 3.2 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others has held that the expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section

Mrs. Balu Sugunalatha, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(6), Chennai

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

ITA 263/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 261/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Palani, Income Tax Officer, No. 7/5, 3Rd Floor, Meenakshi Vs. Circle (Osd)-1, Apartments, P.S. Sivaswamy Street, Trichy. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Ahipp3281F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 262 & 263/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Mrs. Balu Sugunalatha, The Income Tax Officer, No. 7/5, 3Rd Floor, Meenakshi Non Corporate Ward 1(6) Chennai. Apartments, P.S. Sivaswamy Street, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004 Vs. [Pan: Axsps3623E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, Ca : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In Ita No. 261/Chny/2025 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. The assessee filed affidavits for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon :-5-: ITA. Nos:261, 262 & 263/Chny/2025 hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find

Mrs. Balu Sugunalatha, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(6), Chennai

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

ITA 262/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 261/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Palani, Income Tax Officer, No. 7/5, 3Rd Floor, Meenakshi Vs. Circle (Osd)-1, Apartments, P.S. Sivaswamy Street, Trichy. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Ahipp3281F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 262 & 263/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Mrs. Balu Sugunalatha, The Income Tax Officer, No. 7/5, 3Rd Floor, Meenakshi Non Corporate Ward 1(6) Chennai. Apartments, P.S. Sivaswamy Street, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004 Vs. [Pan: Axsps3623E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, Ca : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In Ita No. 261/Chny/2025 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. The assessee filed affidavits for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon :-5-: ITA. Nos:261, 262 & 263/Chny/2025 hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find