← 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

Ladu Ram, Tonk vs. ITO Ward, Tonk

Appeal is disposed off for statistical purposes and the impugned order passed by the ld

ITA 1242/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकरअपील सं./ITA No. 1242/JPR/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Ladu Ram बनाम The ITO C/o Shri R.S. Poonia, CA Vs. Ward -Tonk D-82-B, Siwad Area, Krishna Marg Tonk Bapu Nagar, Jaipur 302 015 स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AGJPL 0056 G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assessee by : Shri R.S.Poonia, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,

For Appellant: Shri R.S.Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 69A

having been filed 98 days after the prescribed date. 2. During the pendency of the appeal, on 16-01-2024, an application seeking condonation of delay came to be filed under the signatures of ld AR for the SHRI LADU RAM VS ITO, WARD – TONK, TONK appellant- applicant. Since ... application under the signatures of the ld.AR was not maintainable, application seeking condonation of delay of 98 days has been presented today. 3. Firstly, arguments have been advanced on the application seeking condonation of delay. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the applicant is an uneducated person