← 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

Palanisamy Ravisankar, Sankari vs. ITO, Ward-1, Salem

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

ITA 3185/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3185/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Palanisamy Ravisankar Income Tax Officer, Aravankadu, Sanyasipatti Post, Vs. Ward-1(7) Sankari West Salem. Namakkal Dist.-637 303. Pan: Allpr-2541-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.N.V.Lakshmi, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A) - Nfac Order Dated 21.08.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 42 Days In Filing This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of This Appeal & Also A Supporting Affidavit. 3. On Perusal Of The Aforesaid Reasons In The Condonation Application, We Are Of The View That There Is Sufficient Cause For Belated Filing Of This Appeal & No Latches Can Be Attributed To The Assessee. Hence, We Condone The Delay In Filing This Appeal & Proceed To Dispose Off The Appeal On Merits.

For Appellant: Ms.N.V.Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

Year is 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 42 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal and also a supporting affidavit. 3. On perusal of the aforesaid reasons ... view that there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 4. At the very outset, we notice that the AO levied

G2156 Sozhanga Nallur Urb An Co-Operative Credit So Ciety Ltd, Sholinganallur vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Chennai

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

ITA 3184/CHNY/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. K.Sowndarya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

view of section 80AC, the claim of deduction u/s.80P was denied. The Ld. AR submitted that assessee has filed condonation of delay application for condoning delay in filing return of income and same is pending consideration before DGIT (Investigation), Chennai. A copy of the application dated 24.12.2024 for condoning delay ... filing of return of income is placed on record. The Ld.AR submitted in view of pendency of condonation of delay application, the issues raised in this appeal may be restored to the files AO to await outcome of condonation of application and direct AO thereafter to take a decision

Palanisamy Ravisankar, Aravankadu vs. ITO, Ward I(7), Salem

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

ITA 3182/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3182/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Palanisamy Ravisankar Income Tax Officer, Aravankadu, Sanyasipatti Post, Vs. Ward-1(7) Sankari West Salem. Namakkal Dist.-637 303. Pan: Allpr-2541-P

For Appellant: Ms.N.V.Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 250

Year is 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 42 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal and also a supporting affidavit. 3. On perusal of the aforesaid reasons ... view that there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 4. At the very outset, we notice that

We Can, Tuticorin vs. CIT (Exemption), Chennai

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

ITA 2809/CHNY/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Ms. Joshita Jothi, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

this appeal. The assessee has file of this appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condoning the d an application for condoning the delay along with an affidavit affidavit sworn by Angeline Koilraj, President of the Angeline Koilraj, President of the assessee trust supporting all the averments made ... assessee trust supporting all the averments made in the a assessee trust supporting all the averments made in the application for condonation of delay. 3. The contents of the application/affidavit shows that the assessee The contents of the application/affidavit shows that the assessee The contents of the application/affidavit shows that

M/S. Manali Petrochemicals Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1, Ltu, Chennai

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

ITA 2488/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2488/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Manali Petrochemicals Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 88 Spic House, Mount Road, Income Tax, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. Corporate Circle -1, Ltu, Chennai. [Pan:Aaacm3404D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P.V. Sudakar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Gouthami Manivasagam Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 57 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 Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri P.V. Sudakar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Gouthami Manivasagam JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 57 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

Sm 55 Medc Executive Employee Co-Op Thrift and Credit Society, Salem vs. CIT(A), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2238/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2238/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 V. M/S. Sm 55 Medc Executive The Income Tax Officer, Employee Co-Op Thrift & Credit Ward 1(6), Society, Salem 19/88-F, Central Office Road, Eb Central Office Area, Salem – 636 401. [Pan: Aaras 2505A]

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. D. Babitha, JCIT
Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the cause for the delay. After going through the contents of the affidavit and the reason for condonation of delay, we find that there was sufficient cause for the delay and therefore, we condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal on merits

Bijay Kumar Das, Kishanganj vs. ITO Ward3(1), Purnia

ITA 290/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Ganesh Mahadeorao Thaware, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward 5(3), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 623/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Kapil BahriFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69A

leave.” 3. There is a delay of 03 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee. Since the delay being minor, we condone the delay. 4. The assessee is a salaried individual, who did not file return of income believing that he did not have taxable income. During ... material on record including the contents of assessment order, grounds of appeal with statement of facts filed by the assessee. (ii) The condonation of delay is granted. (iii) On going through the submissions filed by the assessee I am of the considered opinion that the issues contained in the response

Yogesh Harilal Patel, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward-4(3), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed, but for statistical purpose only

ITA 557/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

filing this appeal by the assessee. While going through the record available before us, we find that the assessee has furnished application seeking condonation of delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal which is even supported by a sworn affidavit. The contents of the 2 Yogesh Harilal Patel ... no.557/Nag./2024 application seeking condonation of delay in filing this appeal are extracted below for ready reference:- “In this present appeal, the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has passed the Order u/s.250/u/s.143(3) of 1.T.Act, 1961 dt.12.10.2023. The said order was passed by CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

Ashish Keshav Ukey, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Nagpur

In the result, appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 516/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Tribunal. While going through the record available before us, we find that the assessee has even not bothered to file any application for condonation of delay supported by duly sworn affidavit. It is more surprising to note that there was even delay in filing first 2 Ashish Keshav Ukey ... no.515 & 516/Nag./2024 appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A) also, the assessee did not file any application for condonation of delay. Leave aside this, the assessee even chose not to appear before the learned CIT(A) despite several statutory notices issued by the learned

Ashish Keshav Ukey, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Nagpur

In the result, appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 515/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Tribunal. While going through the record available before us, we find that the assessee has even not bothered to file any application for condonation of delay supported by duly sworn affidavit. It is more surprising to note that there was even delay in filing first 2 Ashish Keshav Ukey ... no.515 & 516/Nag./2024 appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A) also, the assessee did not file any application for condonation of delay. Leave aside this, the assessee even chose not to appear before the learned CIT(A) despite several statutory notices issued by the learned

Sangeet Ashokrao Chavan, Nagpur vs. ACIT/DCIT Circle-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed, but only for statistical purposes

ITA 510/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

days in filing the present appeal by the assessee. Before us, the assessee has furnished application-cum-affidavit dated 16/09/2024, duly sworn seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The contents of the application-cum-affidavit explaining delay are extracted below for ready reference ... caused. 9. In light of the above facts and in the interest of natural justice I pray before your honours to kindly condone the delay in filing of the appeal, admit the appeal and hear the appeal on merits in the interest of natural justice. 10. I have gone through

Panhera Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Buldhana vs. ITO Ward-2, Khamgaon

In the result, assessee’s appeal being ITA no

ITA 496/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)

later participated in the proceeding. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) is justified in not condoning the delay in filing appeal. 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) is justified in confirming the order passed ... Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed its appeal belatedly which was delayed by 396 days. Though the assessee filed application for condonation of delay, however, the reasons stated by the assessee were found to be neither sufficient nor convincing to be acceptable to the learned

Panhera Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Buldhana vs. ITO Ward-2, Khamgaon

In the result, assessee’s appeal being ITA no

ITA 495/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)

later participated in the proceeding. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) is justified in not condoning the delay in filing appeal. 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) is justified in confirming the order passed ... Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed its appeal belatedly which was delayed by 396 days. Though the assessee filed application for condonation of delay, however, the reasons stated by the assessee were found to be neither sufficient nor convincing to be acceptable to the learned

Rajura Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Chandrapur vs. Office of the Income Tax Officer Ward 5, Chandrapur

ITA 483/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 250Section 80P

before the Tribunal. While going through the record available before us, we find that the assessee has filed affidavit with a request to condone the delay. The contents of the affidavit is extracted below:– ―A. That the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is dated 02/05/2023 which was uploaded ... challenge the appellate order passed by the learned CIT(A) by way of appeal filed before your Honour with a request for condonation of delay. In view of this, it is prayed that the delay of 432 days may kindly be condoned in order to render the justice.‖ 4. After

Amol Babanrav Kolakar, Mangrulpir vs. ITO Ward-2, Akola

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

ITA 294/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 68

erred in dismissing Assessee's Appeal on the ground that the Appeal is late by 59 days and Assessee has not file the condonation of delay application. 2] Learned A.O. erred in adding amounting to Rs.10,96,050/- as unexplained cash credit and added the said income u/s.68 r.w.s. 115BBF ... appeal before the Tribunal. While going through the record available before us, I find that the assessee has filed application dated 13/05/2024, seeking condonation of delay which is supported by Affidavit duly sworn. The contents of the application seeking condonation are as under:– “The above referred Appellant's order passed

T.J.Mathai and Company, Ernakulam vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 721/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2014-15 T.J. Mathai & Company .......... Appellant Amigo House, Thoundayil Road Cochin 682036 [Pan: Aahft6856C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Corporate Ward 2(1), Kochi Appellant By: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271B

outset we find that there is a delay of 138 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. On a perusal of the averments made in the affidavit it is evident that the appellant

Lakhan Lal Malviya, Chicholi, Betul vs. NFAC, Delhi

ITA 484/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर (एकल सदस्यीय प्रकरण) न्यायपीठ, इंदौर श्री मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष आ.अ.सं.484

Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 648/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT-Th. V.H
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT the assessee filed an affidavit stating the reasons for delay and prayed for condonation of delay, the content of the affidavit reads as under :- “I Narendra Singh Laxman Singh Rathore S/o Shri Laxman Singh Rathore aged about 51 years. Director of M/s Kiran ... perused the materials available on record. The bench after considering the contention raised in the condonation petition filed by the assessee and thereby condone the delay as observed by the registry. 5. Now coming to the merits of the appeal. The brief facts of the case are that a survey

Cheturam Suman, Baran vs. ITO-Ward-Barn, Baran

14. In the given situation, concerned about compliance with the principles

ITA 1530/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Cit(A) Was Also Filed About 174 Days Of The Prescribed Period Of Limitation, But, Ld. Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri C.P.Chawla, ITPFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144ASection 250

Consultant about the impugned order on 10.11.2024, and thereupon he presented this appeal on 23.12.2024. On this submission, he has prayed for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. 4. Learned DR has strongly opposed the application seeking condonation of delay, while submitting that the applicant has failed ... that the appeal before the CIT(A) was also filed about 174 days of the prescribed period of limitation, but, Ld. CIT(A) condoned the delay in filing of the appeal. 6. Here too, an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been filed. As reported