← 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

Erode District Tractor Owners Association, Erode vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Erode

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

ITA 2516/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 139Section 208Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

based on the assessed income instead of admitted income. Ground No.3 relates to the issue that the CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeals before him despite sufficient cause and reasons stated in the petition for condonation of delay. The other grounds namely Ground ... assessment year 2015-16 dismissing the appeals in limine read as follows:- “5.3 Before considering the request to condone the delay in filing of appeals as well as adjudication the case on merits, the appellant has not satisfied the conditions specified u/s 249(4). Section 249(4) lays down

Harmrrt Singh, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-49(5), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2558/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2558/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2012-13) Harmeet Singh, El-06, L-Block, Ii Floor, Hari Nagar, New Delhi 110064 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Bctps-5058-L बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Ward-49(5), New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri S.K. Goyal, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 04/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-10, Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 26.03.2024, For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Counsel For The Assessee Stated At Bar That The Assessee Has Opted To Settle The Issue In Appeal Under Vsvs 2024 & Has Already Filed Form No. 1. He Prayed For Withdrawing The Appeal On Instructions From The Assessee. 3. The Assessee Is Allowed To Withdraw The Appeal As Prayed For.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Goyal, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

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

Varadayampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Coimbatore vs. Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2799/CHNY/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2799/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Varadayampalayam Primary Agricultural Ito बनाम/ Co-Operative Credit Society Non-Corporate Ward-1(4), #31, Kattampatty, Ss Kullam Via Coimbatore. Vs. Coimbatore Dist. 641 107. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabak-0997-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. R. Reshma (Advocate) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ashwin D. Gowda (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Thane [Cit(A)] Dated 26-09-2024 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 30-09-2020. 2. In The Intimation U/S 143(1), The Assessee Was Denied Deduction U/S 80P For Rs.2.06 Lacs Since The Return Of Income Was Filed With A Delay. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 31-03-2019 Which Was Processed U/S 143(1) On 30-09-2020 Denying Impugned Deductions To The Assessee. During Appellate Proceedings, The Assessee Relied On Certain Case Laws

For Appellant: Ms. R. Reshma (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D. Gowda (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

could not be faulted with. 5. Having said so, we find that remedial mechanism has been provided to the assessee to seek condonation of delay before appropriate authority u/s 119 of the Act. To enable the assessee to avail the same, for the said limited purpose, we restore the appeal

Allappalayam Paccs, Coimbatore vs. Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2795/CHNY/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2795/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2019-20) K 1853 Allapalayam Primary Agricultural Ito बनाम/ Co-Operative Credit Society Non-Corporate Ward-1(3), Ruthriampalayam, Allapalayam Post Coimbatore. Vs. Annur Tk, Coimbatore Dist. 641 653 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabak-0988-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. R. Reshma (Advocate) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ashwin D. Gowda (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2025

For Appellant: Ms. R. Reshma (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D. Gowda (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P(2)(a)

acquainted with computer knowledge. The fact of dismissal of first appeal came to knowledge belatedly. Though Ld. Sr. DR opposed the condonation of delay, however, keeping in mind the principles of natural justice and considering the status of the assessee, we condone the delay and proceed for adjudication ... could not be faulted with. 6. Having said so, we find that remedial mechanism has been provided to the assessee to seek condonation of delay before appropriate authority u/s 119 of the Act. To enable the assessee to avail the same, for the said limited purpose, we restore the appeal

Sucram Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1325/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1325/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Sucram Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Ito बनाम/ H-37-J, 2Nd Floor, Manthoppu Colony, Non-Corporate Ward-6(4), Vs. Ashok Nagar, Chennai-600 083. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aakcs-2196-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Lekha (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. D. Babitha (Jcit) -Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. D. Babitha (JCIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

Upon perusal of impugned order, it could be seen that the appeal was not admitted by Ld. CIT(A) for want of condonation of delay of 720 days. The Ld. AR has placed on record death certificate of its counsel Shri N. Devanathan and stated that the email ... Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M.Krishnamurthy (7 SCC 123) held that condonation of delay is matter of discretion of the court. The delay of very long range could be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory. The primary objective is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties

Ramchand Through Legal Heir Sh. Chander Mohan, Near Gol Kothi, Hansi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Hisar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1525/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1525/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2011-12) Ramchand Through Legal Heir, Sh. Chander Mohan, 733, Ward-3, Near Gol Kothi, Rampura Mohalla, Hansi, Haryana 125033 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Avdpr-8470-R बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Aayakar Bhawan, Sector-14, Hisar, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Haryana 125001 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Kuldip Khera, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 03.02.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 24.08.2023, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 164 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of The Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Was Not Intentional Or For Non Action Of The Assessee/Appellant, But Was For The Reasons Stated In The Application Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Thus, Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Kuldip Khera, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 148

dated 24.08.2023, for assessment year 2011-12. 2. The appeal is time barred by 164 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of the same, I am satisfied that delay in filing of appeal was not intentional

Bhim Sah, Patna vs. ITO, Patna

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 674/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.673&674/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Bhim Sah.…………………………………………………..………….……Appellant Kumhar Toli, Near Mahavir, Kankerbagh Main Road, Patna, Bihar- 800020. [Pan: Amhps2682M] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(2), Patna……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shailendra Sinha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 29, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Both Dated 07.02.2024 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’) For Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Submitted That There Is A Delay Of 232 Days In Filing Both The Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed Applications For Condonation Of Delay Citing Valid & Proper Reasons. After Considering The Averments Made In The Applications, We Condone The Delay In Both The Appeals. 3. First, We Take Up The Issue In Respect Of Ita No.673/Pat/2022 For Assessment Year 2015-16. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In The Case Of

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

submitted that there is a delay of 232 days in filing both the appeals. The assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay citing valid and proper reasons. After considering the averments made in the applications, we condone the delay in both the appeals. 3. First, we take

Bhim Sah, Patna vs. ITO, Patna

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 673/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.673&674/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Bhim Sah.…………………………………………………..………….……Appellant Kumhar Toli, Near Mahavir, Kankerbagh Main Road, Patna, Bihar- 800020. [Pan: Amhps2682M] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(2), Patna……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shailendra Sinha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 29, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Both Dated 07.02.2024 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’) For Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Submitted That There Is A Delay Of 232 Days In Filing Both The Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed Applications For Condonation Of Delay Citing Valid & Proper Reasons. After Considering The Averments Made In The Applications, We Condone The Delay In Both The Appeals. 3. First, We Take Up The Issue In Respect Of Ita No.673/Pat/2022 For Assessment Year 2015-16. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In The Case Of

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

submitted that there is a delay of 232 days in filing both the appeals. The assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay citing valid and proper reasons. After considering the averments made in the applications, we condone the delay in both the appeals. 3. First, we take