← 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

ACIT, Central Circle, Vapi vs. Radha Madhav Eco Industrial Park, Vapi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 762/SRT/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.762/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2021-22) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.625/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 250

assessee submitted that the delay of 63 days in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate. Therefore, the assessee requested to condone the delay in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned Commissioner of Income-tax - Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue submitted assessee ... find that assessee was neither negligent not deliberate in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay would constitute sufficient cause for delay in filing this appeal. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing

Consortium for Industry Development Awareness (Cida), Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1139/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Mar 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1139 & 1140/JP/2024 Consortium For Industry Development Awareness (CIDA) F-103, Plot No. 80, Mahadev Nagar Near Akshardahm Mandir, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur – 302 021 स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADAC 5087 F अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम Vs. निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri R.S. Poonia, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Shri P.P. Meena, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 2

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena, CIT-DR
Section 12A

delay of 205 days in filing both the appeals by the assessee for which the ld. AR has not filed any application for condonation of delay but simultaneously the ld. AR vide application dated 24-02-2025 during the course of hearing prayed for withdrawal of both the appeals ... parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noticed that there is no application by the assessee in connection with condonation of delay in filing both the appeals. It is pertinent to mention that since the assessee has itself withdrawn the appeals, therefore the Bench has no objection

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Pramod Chand Mahnot, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Department and C

ITA 162/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 162/JP/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2012-13 | The DCIT | बनाम | Shri Pramod Chand Mahnot | Circle-5 | Vs. | C-345, Hans Marg, Malviya Nagar, | Jaipur | Jaipur 302 017 (Raj) | स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAPPM 5898 M | अपीलार्थी / Appellant | प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent C.O. No. 5/JP/2023 (Arising out of आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 162/JP/2023) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2012-1

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68Section 69C

there is delay of 60 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee has not filed an application for condonation of delay 4.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that the Court may decide the issue as deemed fit and proper in the case ... hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, the Bench noticed that the assessee has not filed any application for condonation of delay which indicates that the assessee is lethargic in timely filing the appeal before ITAT and thus the assessee is warned to be careful

Arulmigu Ammachaar Amman Temple Trust, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 3331/CHNY/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3331/Chny/2024 Arulmigu Ammachaar Amman Temple Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Trust, No. 51/23, North Boag Road, T. Tax(Exemptions), Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [Pan:Aadtt0319G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai Passed Under Section 80G(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CiT
Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iv)

short]. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 27 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, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which

Jayavel Manikandan, Salem vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2), Salem

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

ITA 3063/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3063/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Jayavel Manikandan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 475/127-C, Angammal Colony, Ward 1(2),Salem. Anna Street, Salem 636 009. [Pan:Auipm2974K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Srikrishna, C.A. (Virtual) ""थ" 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 : 05.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 122 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Explaining Reasons For The Said Delay & Prayed For Condonation Of That Delay. On Perusal Of The Condonation Petition & Upon Hearing Both The Parties, We Find That The 2

For Appellant: Shri Srikrishna, C.A. (Virtual)For Respondent: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

year 2011-12. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 122 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay explaining reasons for the said delay and prayed for condonation of that delay. On perusal of the condonation petition and upon hearing both

Devi Chitra Eknath Kuba, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncw-2(1), Madurai

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

ITA 3027/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3027/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Devi Chitra Eknath Kuba, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1B, Patchariskara Thoppu, Cross Non Corporate Ward 2(1), Street, Kamarajar Street, Madurai. Madurai 625 009. [Pan:Alspk7617A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Thulasi Ram, Advocate, : Shri Sathish Kumar, Advocate & Shri Kumar Subramanian, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.02.2024 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 211 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CiT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 69C

year 2018-19. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 211 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, we 2 I.T.A. No.3027/Chny/24 find the reasons stated