← 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

Tuntun Bhuneshwar Saw, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 13/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.13/Mum/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Tuntun Bhuneshwar Saw Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Kalyan(W) Near Bk 1154, Pawai Chowk Ulhasnagar-3 Ulhasnagar "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Cnops 6463 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri N.A.Kulkarni, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/02/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Impugned Order Dated 19/01/2023, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Learned Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Present Appeal Is Delayed By 684 Days. Along With The Appeal, The Assessee Has Filed An Application Seeking Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal Duly Supported By An Affidavit Sworn By The Assessee, Submitting As Follows: -

For Appellant: Shri N.A.Kulkarni, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

Year 2013-14. 2. The present appeal is delayed by 684 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal duly supported by an affidavit sworn by the assessee, submitting as follows: - 2 Tuntun Bhuneshwar Saw “I Was Doing ... period but prevailed circumstances the appeal being filed late due to such reason. 3 Tuntun Bhuneshwar Saw I am making this affidavit to condone the delay in submissions of our appeal petition upon the above circumstances, the delay not caused intentionally but, caused by above reasons, not to gain anything

ACIT, Circle-23(1), New Delhi vs. Showa India Pvt.Ltd, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15 are dismissed as withdrawn and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 8326/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.1295/िद"ी/2020(िन.व. 2013-14) आअसं.8278/िद"ी/2018(िन.व. 2014-15) Hitachi Astemo Haryana P. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Showa India P. Ltd.), Plot No. 23-22, Sector-58, Faridabad, Haryana 121002 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aabce-5725-G बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 23(1) Delhi आअसं.8326/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 23(1) R.No. 225E, 2Nd Floor, C.R Building, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi बनाम Vs. Hitachi Astemo Haryana P. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Showa India P. Ltd.), Plot No. 23-22, Sector-58, Faridabad, Haryana 121002 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aabce-5725-G

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

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

Showa (India) P.Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle-23(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15 are dismissed as withdrawn and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 8278/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.1295/िद"ी/2020(िन.व. 2013-14) आअसं.8278/िद"ी/2018(िन.व. 2014-15) Hitachi Astemo Haryana P. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Showa India P. Ltd.), Plot No. 23-22, Sector-58, Faridabad, Haryana 121002 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aabce-5725-G बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 23(1) Delhi आअसं.8326/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 23(1) R.No. 225E, 2Nd Floor, C.R Building, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi बनाम Vs. Hitachi Astemo Haryana P. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Showa India P. Ltd.), Plot No. 23-22, Sector-58, Faridabad, Haryana 121002 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aabce-5725-G

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Rhc Holding Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2446/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.2446/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2017-18) Gsma Ltd., 1000 Abernathy Road, Suite 450, Atalanta, Untied State Of America ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaecg-1610-K बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Taxation 1(3)(1), Civic Centre, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By: Shri P.P Singh, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By: Shri M.S Nethrapal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 06.04.2021 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Issued Defect Memo Stating That The Appeal Is Time Barred By 1076 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit Citing Reasons For Delay In Filing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri P.P Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

remotely from the USA. 3.1. We have heard the submissions made by ld. Counsel for the assessee and have examined the application of condonation of delay. The impugned order was passed during Covid period on 06.04.2021. The Hon’ble Apex Court suo moto after taking cognizance of the hardship cause ... reasons stated in the affidavit supporting the application for delay in condonaiton of appeal and the reasons appears to be bonafide. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The facts of the case in brief as emanating from records are: The assessee company was incorporated

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan vs. Ugraya Foods and Feeds Private Limited, Jalpaiguri

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1341/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1341/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Acit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata……...………………...…….………....Appellant Vs. Ugraya Foods & Feeds Pvt. Ltd……............................…..…..... Respondent 12A, Dabgram Industrial Centre, Fulbari, Near Krishna Weight Bridge. [Pan: Aaacy8901B] Appearances By: Shri P. N. Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 13, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 26.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 111 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Revenue Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2020-21 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.23,48,56,350/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass With Specific Reasons Being Substantial Unexplained Loans

Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

outset, the Registry has informed that there is a delay of 111 days in filing the present appeal. The revenue filed application for condonation of delay stating reasons for such delay. After considering the application, we find reasonable cause and condone the delay in filing the appeal and adjudicate