← 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

Sant Shiromani Swami Lilashah Trust, Banaskantha vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 64/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.63/Ahd/2025 & 64/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : - Sant Shiromani Swami The Cit (Exemption) बनाम/ Lilashah Trust Ahmedabad – 380 015 V/S. Deesa, Disa Bazar S.O. Deesa Banaskantha – 385 535 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abcts 9755 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Urjita Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Are Two Separate Appeals Filed By The Assessee Relating To Registration Under Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) & Approval Under Section 80G(5) Of The Act. Since Both The Appeals Involve Common Facts & Issues, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Ms. Urjita Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR
Section 12(1)Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

Swami Lilashah Trust vs. CITE) 4 5. During the course of the hearing before us, the Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee requested condonation of delay of 8 days in filing the appeal(s), citing reasonable causes mentioned in the affidavits. The AR submitted that part details were submitted before ... amended. 6.1. The delay in filing the appeal is only 8 days, and considering the bona fide reasons stated in the affidavit, we condone the delay in the interest of justice. 6.2. Since the additional documents (financial statements and modified trust deed) were not before

Sant Shiromani Swami Lilashah Trust, Banaskantha vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 63/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.63/Ahd/2025 & 64/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : - Sant Shiromani Swami The Cit (Exemption) बनाम/ Lilashah Trust Ahmedabad – 380 015 V/S. Deesa, Disa Bazar S.O. Deesa Banaskantha – 385 535 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abcts 9755 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Urjita Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Are Two Separate Appeals Filed By The Assessee Relating To Registration Under Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) & Approval Under Section 80G(5) Of The Act. Since Both The Appeals Involve Common Facts & Issues, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Ms. Urjita Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR
Section 12(1)Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

Swami Lilashah Trust vs. CITE) 4 5. During the course of the hearing before us, the Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee requested condonation of delay of 8 days in filing the appeal(s), citing reasonable causes mentioned in the affidavits. The AR submitted that part details were submitted before ... amended. 6.1. The delay in filing the appeal is only 8 days, and considering the bona fide reasons stated in the affidavit, we condone the delay in the interest of justice. 6.2. Since the additional documents (financial statements and modified trust deed) were not before

Balaji Bullions & Commodities (I) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5976/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Girish Agrawalbalaji Universal Tradelink Vs. The Dcit, Cc-7(1) Pvt Ltd Room No. 653, 6Th Floor 3Rd Floor, Ashok House, Opp Aayakar Bhavan, Khara Kuwa, 118/120, Maharishi Karve Road, Shaikh Menon St, Zaveri Mumbai – 400020. Bazar, Mumbai – 400 002. Pan/Gir No. Aabcl0236H (Applicant) (Respondent) Balaji Bullions & Vs. The Dcit, Cc-7(1) Commodities (I) Pvt Ltd Room No. 653, 6Th Floor 3Rd Floor, Ashok House, Opp Aayakar Bhavan, Khara Kuwa, 118/120, Maharishi Karve Road, Shaikh Menon St, Zaveri Mumbai – 400020. Bazar, Mumbai – 400 002. Pan/Gir No. Aadcb0236F (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

grateful. 4. On the other hand, Ld. Ld.DR contesting the said application and argued that the assessee has no “sufficient cause” for seeking condonation of delay and therefore same deserves to be dismissed. 5. We have heard the counsels for both the parties on this application for seeking condonation ... become infructuous. Therefore without going into the merits of the reasons mentioned in the application for seeking condonation of delay. We take into consideration the fact that the assessee has a good case for seeking consonation of delay as the quantum appeal has already been decided in favoure of assessee

Balaji Unversal Tradelink Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT. CC-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5975/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Girish Agrawalbalaji Universal Tradelink Vs. The Dcit, Cc-7(1) Pvt Ltd Room No. 653, 6Th Floor 3Rd Floor, Ashok House, Opp Aayakar Bhavan, Khara Kuwa, 118/120, Maharishi Karve Road, Shaikh Menon St, Zaveri Mumbai – 400020. Bazar, Mumbai – 400 002. Pan/Gir No. Aabcl0236H (Applicant) (Respondent) Balaji Bullions & Vs. The Dcit, Cc-7(1) Commodities (I) Pvt Ltd Room No. 653, 6Th Floor 3Rd Floor, Ashok House, Opp Aayakar Bhavan, Khara Kuwa, 118/120, Maharishi Karve Road, Shaikh Menon St, Zaveri Mumbai – 400020. Bazar, Mumbai – 400 002. Pan/Gir No. Aadcb0236F (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

grateful. 4. On the other hand, Ld. Ld.DR contesting the said application and argued that the assessee has no “sufficient cause” for seeking condonation of delay and therefore same deserves to be dismissed. 5. We have heard the counsels for both the parties on this application for seeking condonation ... become infructuous. Therefore without going into the merits of the reasons mentioned in the application for seeking condonation of delay. We take into consideration the fact that the assessee has a good case for seeking consonation of delay as the quantum appeal has already been decided in favoure of assessee

Subodh Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-62(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1742/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआअसं.1742/िद"ी/2018(िन.व. 2014-15) Subodh Gupta, D-3, East Jyoti Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi 110093 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aevpg-4646-M बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Ward 14(3), C.R Building, Delhi 110002 Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 18/03/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 18/03/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 20, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 28.02.2018, For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Dated 31.01.2025 Stating That The Assessee Has Settled The Dispute In Appeal Under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 (In Short ‘Vsvs’) & Furnished A Copy Of Form No. 1 Along With Application. The Assessee Thus, Prayed For Withdrawal Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR

appeal in the event assessee’s declaration made under VSVS is not accepted, the Registry shall not insist for filing of application for condonation of delay, if the Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order is filed beyond time on account of delay in communication of outcome under VSVS