← 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

Kushal Bharat Realcon Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1099/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1099/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kushal Bharat Realcon Pvt. Ltd………………………….....Appellant 16, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata – 700013. [Pan: Aahcm3213B] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), Kolkata……….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddhharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashutosh Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 27, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.09.2023 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 192 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, 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 Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.17,15,430/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)

Registry has informed that there is a delay of 192 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay stating reasons for such delay. After considering the application, we find reasonable cause and the delay was not intentional. We, therefore, condone the delay

Avm Autos, Pudukottai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Pudukottai

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

ITA 3002/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3002/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 M/S. Avm Autos, The Income Tax Officer, 9954/P-1, Alangudi Road, Vs. Ward-1, Pudukottai – 622 001. Pudukottai. Pan: Aajfa 2158E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Easwar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A)/Nfac’S Order Dated 30.04.2024, 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 148 Days In Filing This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. The Reasons Stated In The Condonation Application For Belated Filing Of This Appeal Are As Under:- “The Order U/S.250 Was Passed By The Ld.Cit(A) On 30/04/2024. The Appellant Had Closed The Business During The Year 2017-18 Completely. The Mail Address & Mobile Number As Per The Income Tax Profile Was Not Monitored By The Partner Of The Appellant-Firm, Due To Which The Appellant Was Also Not Aware Of Any Of The Notice & Order Related To Appeal Proceedings. However Based On The Demand Raised By The Concerned Jurisdiction Officer, The Appellant Came To Know That Appeal Was Disposed Off By The Ld.Cit(A), Immediately, The Order Was Downloaded From The Portal & The Appeal Was Prepared By The Auditor. The Appellant Filed An Appeal Eventually Filed On 02.12.2024.”

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Easwar, JCIT
Section 144Section 250

Year is 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 148 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reasons stated in the condonation application for belated filing ... 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 appeal