← 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

Income Tax Officer Ward Hingoli Camp at Parbhani, Parbhani vs. Rajaram Ramswarup Jaju, Selu Parbhani

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in C

ITA 1882/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1882/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ito, Ward Hingoli Camp At Vs. Rajaram Ramswarup Parbhani, Parbhani. Jaju, 223, Jaju Industries Atre Nagar, Selu, Parbhani- 431503. Pan : Aakpj4951H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.35//Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1882/Pun/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Rajaram Ramswarup Jaju, Vs. Ito, Ward Hingoli 223, Jaju Industries Atre Camp At Parbhani, Nagar, Selu, Parbhani. Parbhani- 431503. Pan : Aakpj4951H Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Basavaraj Hiremath Assessee By : Shri Anand R. Partani & Shri Darshan R. Gattani Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Anand R. Partani &For Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

days in filing of the above cross objection before this Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. In this regard, it was submitted by Ld. AR that the intimation of second appeal filed by the Department before the Tribunal ... unintentional and due to the fact of having no knowledge of filing of appeal by the Department. Accordingly, it was prayed to condone the delay and admit the cross objection for adjudication. Ld. DR requested before the Bench not to condone 5 C.O. No.35/PUN/2024 the delay and requested to dismiss

The Pnb Employees Co-Op. Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-12(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3055/CHNY/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.: 3055/Chny/2024 यनिाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year: 2023-24 The Punjab National Bank The Income Tax Officer, Employees Cooperative Thrift & V. Non-Corp Ward -12(1), Credit Society Ltd., Chennai. No. 156, Linghi Chetty Street, Parrys, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aafat-2460-B] अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. A. Sanjay Arvind, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri. A. Sanjay Arvind, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80P

ld.CIT(A), the assessee is before us. 4. The ld.AR brought to our notice that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the return of income by the assessee has been filed before the ld.PCIT-8, Chennai on 17.02.2025 by explaining the reasons for delay ... filing the return. The ld.AR stated that they are confident of receiving a favourable order from the ld.PCIT by condoning the delay for filing the return of income and hence, prayed for remitting the file back to Assessing Officer for considering the assessment based on the result of the condonation

Muthaiya Anandan, Madurai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corp Ward 1(1), Madurai

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

ITA 2985/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2985/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Muthaiya Anandan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 8, Manickam Pillai Street, Non Corporate Ward 1(1), Madakulam, Madurai 625 003. Madurai. [Pan:Afjpa4111N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 208 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 115B

year 2018-19. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 208 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, 2 I.T.A. No.2985/Chny/24 we find the reasons stated