← 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

Vishan Chandra Gupta S/O Salig Ram 56-Lajpat Nagar, Karamchari Nagar Bareilly-243001, Bareilly vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bareilly

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 173/LKW/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2011-12 Vishan Chandra Gupta V. Income Tax Officer S/O Salig Ram, Ward 1(1) 56, Lajpat Nagar Bareilly Karamchari Marg Bareilly Tan/Pan:Anhpg7000J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 01 2025 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.03.2023, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 12.07.2012, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.3,61,210/-. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Air Information That The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Amounting To Rs.13,90,000/- In His Saving Bank Account During The Financial Year 2010-11 Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Consideration. The Assessing

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

there was a delay of 27 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application dated 05.06.2023 for condonation of delay, duly supported by Medical Certificate, stating therein that the assessee was suffering from Dengue and was advised by the Doctor for complete bed rest ... view of the prayer made by the Assessee, duly supported by Medical Certificate and no objection by the Ld. Sr. D.R., I condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 9. None was present on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was called

Nikanth (Narol) Co. Op. Shops & Off Society Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes subject to the above directions

ITA 1814/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1814/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Nikanth (Narol) Co-Op. Shops & The Income Tax Officer बनाम Off Society Limited Ward-1(1)(1) / 299 & 230/3 Paiki Ahmedabad – 380 015 V/S. Opp. Gokul Petrol Pump Narol Char Rasta Ahmedabad – 382 405 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaban 2595 B (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Preyashi Tated, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastav, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Ms. Preyashi Tated, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastav, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 234FSection 270A

legal procedures, and the order was received by speed post only after the time for compliance had passed. The CIT(A) rejected the condonation of delay, holding that the reasons provided were vague and unsupported by evidence. The CIT(A) further observed that the assessee failed to appear during appellate ... illegal as it is in violation of principle of natural justice as no opportunity was given to assessee for explaining reason for condonation of delay. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not condoning delay in filling appeal

Shree Lakshmi Trust, Madurai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 2954/CHNY/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2954/Chny/2024 Shree Lakshmi Trust, Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax 108/111, Sedapatti Road, Tirali B.O. [Exemptions], Tirali, Madurai 625 706. Chennai. [Pan:Abbts3551J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai In Rejecting The Application Filed In Form 10Ab Under Clause (Iii) Of First Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 80GSection 80G(5)

short]. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 144 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 2 I.T.A. No.2954/Chny/24 find the reasons stated by the assessee

Mr. Rangal Sathis Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(3), Chennai

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

ITA 2949/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2949/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Rangan Sathis Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 6, 4Th Cross Street, Ellaiamman Non Corporate Ward 3(3), Colony Vellala, Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai 600 086. [Pan:Bmvps9901E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.06.2024 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 81 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 b. Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 154Section 69C

year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 81 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 ... assessee for filing condonation petition in support of an affidavit for the delay. The ld. CIT(A) shall consider the same and condone the delay. The ld. CIT(A) shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Satya Srinivasa Prasad Baggu, Chennai vs. CIT(Appeals), NFAC

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

ITA 2939/CHNY/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2939/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Satya Srinivasa Prasad Baggu, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 30, 9Th Street, Sakthi Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 17(7), Shashini Nivas, Kolathur, Chennai. Chennai 600 099. [Pan:Ajepb0755C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sathya Harsha, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri Sathya Harsha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 69A

appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine since assessee could not file any petition for condonation of delay in support of an affidavit by furnishing reasonable cause for the delay of 841 days in filing the appeal. 3 I.T.A. No.2939/Chny/24 ... support of an affidavit for the delay of 841 days. The ld. CIT(A) shall 4 I.T.A. No.2939/Chny/24 consider the same and condone the delay. The ld. CIT(A) shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Rakesh Law Foundation, Chennai vs. CIT(Exemption) Chennai, Chennai

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

ITA 2938/CHNY/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2938/Chny/2024 Rakesh Law Foundation, Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax No. 51/11, 7Th Avenue, Soundariya [Exemptions], Colony, Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai. Chennai 600 101. [Pan:Aaetr6528A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.06.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai In Rejecting The Application Filed In Form 10Ab Under Section 12(1)(Ac)(Iii) Seeking Registration Under Section 12Ab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12A

short]. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 446 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. 2 I.T.A. No.2938/Chny/24 Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee

Jayaprakash Asha, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 19(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2937/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2935, 2936 & 2937/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayaprakash Asha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 10, Selva Lakshmi Homes, V.V. Non Corporate Ward 19(3), Colony 4Th Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan:Awzpa4594L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Lekha Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 06.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Appeal In Ita No. 2935/Chny/2024 Deals With Quantum Addition & The Appeals In Ita No. 2936 & 2937/Chny/2024 Are Filed Against Order Under Section 207A

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 194ASection 207ASection 69A

short] respectively. 2. We find that these three appeals are filed with a delay of 111 days. The assessee filed affidavits 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 are bonafide

Jayaprakash Asha, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 19(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2936/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2935, 2936 & 2937/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayaprakash Asha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 10, Selva Lakshmi Homes, V.V. Non Corporate Ward 19(3), Colony 4Th Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan:Awzpa4594L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Lekha Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 06.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Appeal In Ita No. 2935/Chny/2024 Deals With Quantum Addition & The Appeals In Ita No. 2936 & 2937/Chny/2024 Are Filed Against Order Under Section 207A

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 194ASection 207ASection 69A

short] respectively. 2. We find that these three appeals are filed with a delay of 111 days. The assessee filed affidavits 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 are bonafide

Jayaprakrash Asha, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 19(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2935/CHNY/2024[2018-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2025AY 2018-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2935, 2936 & 2937/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayaprakash Asha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 10, Selva Lakshmi Homes, V.V. Non Corporate Ward 19(3), Colony 4Th Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan:Awzpa4594L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Lekha Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 06.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Appeal In Ita No. 2935/Chny/2024 Deals With Quantum Addition & The Appeals In Ita No. 2936 & 2937/Chny/2024 Are Filed Against Order Under Section 207A

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 194ASection 207ASection 69A

short] respectively. 2. We find that these three appeals are filed with a delay of 111 days. The assessee filed affidavits 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 are bonafide