← 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

Mrs Vini P. Keni, Panaji vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Panaji

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

ITA 112/PAN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji20 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 112/Pan/2022 (A.Y. 2014-15 ) Vini Prasad Keni, Vs Ito-Ward-1(3), Keni Building, Aayakar Bhavan, . Dr.Dada Vaidhya Road, Panaji-403001, Panjim-403001, Goa. Goa. . Pan .No. Adppk9767N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri D.E.Robinson.Ar Revenue By Sri Narender Reddy.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of Nfac/ Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay Of 13 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & The Assesse Has Filed The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. Whereas, The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & The Ld. Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal. The Assessee Has Raised

Section 14ASection 194CSection 40

delay of 13 days in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed the affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and the Ld. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal

Shree Rikhavdevji & Kunthunathji Prabhu Jain Swetamber Murtipujak Padhi, Sabarkantha vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2132/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2132/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : - Na Shree Rikhavdevji & Kunthunathji Prabhu Jain Swetamber Murtipujak Padhi Ilol, A Pilol, Himatnagar – 383 001 Sabarkantha (Gujarat) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aajts 7172 E The Cit (Exemption) बनाम / V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 015 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tej Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 19/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 20/03/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(E)"], Rejecting The Application For Registration Under Section 12Ab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"] & Cancelling The Provisional Registration Granted Earlier. 2. The Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 49 Days. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay. It Has Been Stated That The Impugned Order Was Received Via E-Mail On 29/08/2024, But Due To Inadvertence, The Same Was Not Noticed Immediately As The Accountant Was Not Checking The Email Regularly. The Order Came To The Notice Of The Assessee Only On 12/11/2024, After Which Necessary Legal Advice Was Obtained & The Appeal Was Filed On 19/12/2024. 2.

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

provisional registration granted earlier. 2. The appeal was filed with a delay of 49 days. The assessee has submitted an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. It has been stated that the impugned order was received via e-mail on 29/08/2024

Airona Tiles Limited, Sabarkantha vs. The DCIT, Circle Himatnagar Presently the DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1127/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1127/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Airona Tiles Limited The Dcit बनाम/ Ceramic City Circle Himatnagar. V/S. At & Post : Dalpur Presently The Dcit, Kathwada Road Circle-2(1)(1) Sabarkantha – 383 120 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aanca 3712 D (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil N. Shah & Aatish Shah Ars Revenue By : Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.10.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 21.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] By Dcit/Acit, Circle Himatnagar [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. Airona Tiles Ltd. Vs. The Dcit, Circle Himatnagar - Presently The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1) Asst. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Anil N. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(3)Section 43BSection 68

Year : 2016-17 5 13. Your appellant craves a leave to add, alter or delete the grounds of appeal wherever the occasion demand. Condonation of delay 4. The Registry noted a delay in filing this appeal before us. The appeal was filed on 29.12.2023 against the order ... dated 13.10.2022, resulting in a delay of 382 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, citing several reasons for the delay. The assessee contended that neither the order of CIT(A) nor any notices were received through email or registered post

Vikram Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-18(5), Chennai

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

ITA 311/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 310 & 311/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vikram Reddy, Income Tax Officer, 202, Lotus Serviced Apartments Vs. Non Corporate Ward - 18(5), 15, Venkataraman Street, Chennai. Thiyagaraya Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Aqzpv5520B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate : ""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 : 20.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 69

against quantum addition in ITA No. 310/Chny/2025 for adjudication, wherein, the assessee challenged the exparte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 3. At the outset, we note that the assessee is an individual and no return of income filed. According ... carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that the assessee duly submitted petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR explained the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before

Vikram Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-18(5), Chennai

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

ITA 310/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 310 & 311/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vikram Reddy, Income Tax Officer, 202, Lotus Serviced Apartments Vs. Non Corporate Ward - 18(5), 15, Venkataraman Street, Chennai. Thiyagaraya Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Aqzpv5520B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate : ""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 : 20.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 69

against quantum addition in ITA No. 310/Chny/2025 for adjudication, wherein, the assessee challenged the exparte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 3. At the outset, we note that the assessee is an individual and no return of income filed. According ... carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that the assessee duly submitted petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR explained the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before