← 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

Sukhminder Singh So Joginder Singh Village and Post Office Udhamgarh, Jagadhri Yamunanagar, Haryana vs. Assessing Officer NFAC Delhi Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Income Tax Officer Ward-5 Yamunanagar, Haryana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 647/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 647/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sukhminder Singh, The Ito, बनाम S/O Joginder Singh, Ward 5, Village & Po Udhamgarh, Yamunanagar Vs. Jagadhri Yamunanagar "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bpsps7167A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा""रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None (Withdrawal Application) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.03.2024 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. It Is Seen From The Record That The Registry Has Pointed Out A Delay Of 08 Days (09 Days As Per Assessee) In Filing Of 647-Chd-2024 Sukhminder Singh, Jagdhari

For Appellant: None (Withdrawal Application)For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 254(2)

Assessee) in filing of 647-Chd-2024 Sukhminder Singh, Jagdhari 2 the appeal. The Assessee has submitted that an Application for condonation of delay, which is reproduced as under: 647-Chd-2024 Sukhminder Singh, Jagdhari 3 3. We have considered the issue brought on record and gone through the contents ... affidavit for condonation of delay and we feel it appropriate to condone the delay because of the nature of issue discussed in the affidavit. 4. The ld. DR had no objection for condonation of delay. 5. During the proceedings, none appeared on behalf of the Assessee. However, an application dated

Acme Builders Private Limited, Mohali vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 491/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 491/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Vs. The Dcit, Acme Builders Private Limited, Group Housing No. 10, बनाम Central Circe 1(1), Jlpl, Sector 91, Chandigarh Mohali Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaica9869Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate, राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 201Section 271

pointed out a delay of 08 days in filing of the appeal. The Counsel for the Assessee submitted that an Affidavit for condonation of delay, which is reproduced as under: 491-Chd-2024 – ACME Builders Private Limited, Mohali 2 491-Chd-2024 – ACME Builders Private Limited, Mohali ... Builders Private Limited, Mohali 4 3. We have considered the issue brought on record and gone through the contents of the affidavit for condonation of delay and we feel it appropriate to condone the delay because of the nature of issue discussed in the affidavit

Acme Builders Private Limited, Mohali vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 489/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 489/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Vs. The Dcit, Acme Builders Private Limited, Group Housing No. 10, बनाम Central Circe 1(1), Jlpl, Sector 91, Chandigarh Mohali, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaica9869Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate, राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 271A

pointed out a delay of 07 days in filing of the appeal. The Counsel for the Assessee submitted that an Affidavit for condonation of delay, which is reproduced as under: 489-Chd-2024 – ACME Builders Private Limited, Mohali 2 489-Chd-2024 – ACME Builders Private Limited, Mohali ... have considered the issue brought on record and gone through the contents of the affidavit for condonation of delay and we 489-Chd-2024 – ACME Builders Private Limited, Mohali 4 feel it appropriate to condone the delay because of the nature of issue discussed in the affidavit

Kasanagottu Santhosh Kumar, Siddipet, Telangana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Siddipet

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

ITA 1287/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1287/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Kasanagottu Santosh Kumar, Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Vs. Ward-1, Siddipet. Pan:Aqpppk0048K (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri Sai Keerthana, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/02/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 24/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M. : This Appeal Is Filed By Kasanagottu Santhosh Kumar (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 26.06.2024 For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That There Was A Delay Of 103 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Itat. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Along With Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay Which Is To The Following Effect :

For Appellant: Sri Sai Keerthana, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 253(3)

necessary procedures.” On the basis of reason given in Affidavit, the Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) prayed before the bench for condonation of delay. After considering the reason for the delay and after hearing the Learned Department Representative (“Ld. DR”), we are of the opinion that there was a reasonable ... cause for delay in filing the appeal ITA No.1287/Hyd/2024 3 before us. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds : “ 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the order, passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals