← 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

Jegatheesh Prabhu Saritha, Pattukottai vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Thanjavur

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2636/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2635/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2636/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Smt. Jagatheesh Prabhu Saritha Acit बनाम #4/58, Keelakadu Mohamidiyar Street, Circle-2(1) / Vs. Sokanathapuram, Pattukottai-614 803. Thanjavur. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Cwfps-6705-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar (Fca)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Kavitha (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (FCA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

affidavit of the assessee. It has been stated that delay has occurred on account of adverse medical conditions. The Ld. AR has sought condonation of delay in both the appeals and also prayed for remitting the appeals back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) since the assessee failed ... been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR. 2. Keeping in mind the principles of natural justices, we accept the prayer of Ld. AR and condone the delay. However, the same would be subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- which shall be deposited by the assessee within 30 days from

Jegatheesh Prabhu Saritha, Pattukottai vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Thanjavur

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2635/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2635/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2636/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Smt. Jagatheesh Prabhu Saritha Acit बनाम #4/58, Keelakadu Mohamidiyar Street, Circle-2(1) / Vs. Sokanathapuram, Pattukottai-614 803. Thanjavur. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Cwfps-6705-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar (Fca)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Kavitha (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (FCA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

affidavit of the assessee. It has been stated that delay has occurred on account of adverse medical conditions. The Ld. AR has sought condonation of delay in both the appeals and also prayed for remitting the appeals back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) since the assessee failed ... been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR. 2. Keeping in mind the principles of natural justices, we accept the prayer of Ld. AR and condone the delay. However, the same would be subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- which shall be deposited by the assessee within 30 days from

Mrs. Sindhu, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-4, Virudhunagar

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

ITA 2548/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2548/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mrs. Sindhu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, G 5, Lloyds Colony, Royapettah, Ward 4, Chennai 600 014. Virudhunagar. [Pan:Frqps1612J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R.K.V. Sundar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.01.2024 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 210 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Explaining Reasons For The Said Delay & Prayed For Condonation Of That Delay. On Perusal

For Appellant: Shri R.K.V. Sundar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 69A

year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 210 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay explaining reasons for the said delay and prayed for condonation of that delay. On perusal 2 I.T.A. No.2548/Chny/24 of the condonation petition and upon

Thuthikulam Pacb Ltd., Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

ITA 2544/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2544/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Thuthikulam Pacb Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Thuthikulam, Namakkal 637 409, Ward 2, Tamil Nadu. Namakkal. [Pan: Aadft2362D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A. Tamilamudhan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.02.2024 Passed By The Addl/Jcit (A)-1, Noida For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 156 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Explaining Reasons For The Said Delay & Prayed For Condonation Of That Delay. On Perusal Of The Condonation Petition & Upon Hearing Both The Parties, We Find That The 2

For Appellant: Shri A. Tamilamudhan, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 69ASection 80(1)

year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 156 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay explaining reasons for the said delay and prayed for condonation of that delay. On perusal of the condonation petition and upon hearing both

Annai Velankanni Educational Trust, Tirunelveli vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Tirunelveli, Triunelveli

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

ITA 2185/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2185/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Annai Velankanni Educational Trust, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 262A, Thiruchendur Road, Exemptions Ward, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli. Palayamkottai H.O. Tirunelveli 627 002. [Pan:Aaeta3416A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.02.2024 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 129 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Explaining Reasons

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 144

year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 129 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay explaining reasons 2 I.T.A. No.2185/Chny/24 for the said delay and prayed for condonation of that delay. On perusal of the condonation petition and upon ... challenging the action of the Assessing Officer. 4. Before us, the ld. AR Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate submits that, the ld. CIT(E) condoned the delay in filing audit report in Form 10B as well as delay in filing return of income vide his order under section