← 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

Prakashbapu Patil Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd, Sangli vs. ACIT, Circle Sangli, Sangli

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1327/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1324, 1326 & 1327/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2014-15 Prakashbapu Patil Gramin V The Acit, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat S Circle-Sangli. Sanstha Ltd., Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Savali Miraj, Sangli – 416410. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaap1616N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2014-15; Dated 09.04.2024, 10.04.2024 & 09.04.2024 Respectively; Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, All These Three Appeals Were Heard Together

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 269TSection 271ESection 273

1327/PUN/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose. 7. To sum up, all three appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos.1324, 1326 & 1327/PUN/2024 are allowed. Condonation of Delay : 8. There was a small delay of 3-7 days in filing appeal before the ITAT. We have perused the submission of the assessee

Prakashbapu Patil Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd, Sangli vs. ACIT, Circle Sangli, Sangli

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1326/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1324, 1326 & 1327/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2014-15 Prakashbapu Patil Gramin V The Acit, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat S Circle-Sangli. Sanstha Ltd., Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Savali Miraj, Sangli – 416410. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaap1616N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2014-15; Dated 09.04.2024, 10.04.2024 & 09.04.2024 Respectively; Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, All These Three Appeals Were Heard Together

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 269TSection 271ESection 273

1327/PUN/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose. 7. To sum up, all three appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos.1324, 1326 & 1327/PUN/2024 are allowed. Condonation of Delay : 8. There was a small delay of 3-7 days in filing appeal before the ITAT. We have perused the submission of the assessee

Prakashbapu Patil Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd, Sangli vs. ACIT, Circle Sangli, Sangli

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1324/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1324, 1326 & 1327/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2014-15 Prakashbapu Patil Gramin V The Acit, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat S Circle-Sangli. Sanstha Ltd., Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Savali Miraj, Sangli – 416410. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaap1616N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2014-15; Dated 09.04.2024, 10.04.2024 & 09.04.2024 Respectively; Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, All These Three Appeals Were Heard Together

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 269TSection 271ESection 273

1327/PUN/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose. 7. To sum up, all three appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos.1324, 1326 & 1327/PUN/2024 are allowed. Condonation of Delay : 8. There was a small delay of 3-7 days in filing appeal before the ITAT. We have perused the submission of the assessee

Suman Gandhi, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 36(2), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1759/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1759/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Suman Gandhi…………………………....……………………....Appellant E-24/7, Karunamoyee, Sech Bhawan, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700091. [Pan: Axcpg3145R] Vs. Ito, Ward-36(2), Kolkata…..….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit & Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 23, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.06.2024 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’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessing Officer Initiated Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Based On The Information Received From Adit(Inv.), Unit-5, Kolkata, Wherein, It Was Observed That The Assessee Had Claimed Income From Investment Of Shares & Loans For Earning Interest, Insurance Commission & Tuition Fees. The Assessing Officer During The Assessment Proceedings Noticed That The Assessee Sold 20,000 & 29,720 Number Of Shares Of Grapco Mining Ltd. & Patheja Forgings Ltd. Respectively Had Been Sold In Physical Form During The Year For Rs.2,00,000/- & Rs.2,97,200/-

Section 147Section 250

assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal primarily on technical ground by rejecting condonation of delay of 201 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before this Tribunal ... contended before the Bench that the ld. CIT(A) despite rejecting the condonation of delay also proceeded to examine the issue and decided the appeal on merits of the case, which is not permissible under the law. He further argued that the delay in filing the appeal

Delhi Maharashtriya Educational and Cultural Society, New Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), New Delhi

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

ITA 3195/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmandelhi Maharashtriya Educational & Vs. Cit (Exemption), Cultural Society, New Delhi. Ram Bagh, Walchand Palace, Paharganj, New Delhi – 110 055. (Pan : Aaatd5737F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2024 Date Of Order : 23.12.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (E)’) Dated 14.06.2024 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Submitted That The Ld. Cit (E) Rejected The Petition/Application Filed For Condonation Of Delay U/S 119(2)(B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) In Filing Of Form 10B For The Ay 2018-19. He Submitted That There Was Only A Delay

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 119(2)(b)

Year 2018-19. 2. At the outset, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT (E) rejected the petition/application filed for condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) in filing of Form ... exercise of the powers conferred under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, authorised the Commissioners to admit the belated applications of condonation of delay of 365 days for the assessment years 2018-19 or for any subsequent assessment years and to decide the same on merits. Further

Shri Nirmal Sharad Mutha, Ahmednagar vs. ACIT Circle, Ahmednagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2199/PUN/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.2199/Pun/2024 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year:2008-09 Shri Nirmal Sharad Mutha, V The Assistant Plot No.83, Manik Nagar, S Commissioner Of Income Nagar – Pune Road, Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar – 414001. Ahmednagar. Pan: Afvpm3572R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Prasad Bhandari &Ms.Payal Rathi – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Manoj Tripathi - Dr Date Of Hearing 12/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Pune For Assessment Year 2008-09 Dated 03.03.2020 Passed U/Sec.143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Prevailing Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A)-2. Pune Erred In Confirming The Addition Wrongly Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer To The Extent Of Rs.25.00.00 Towards Unexplained Cash Credit Under Section 68 Of The Act Inspite Of The Fact That All The Necessary Conditions Prescribed Under Section 68 Are Fulfilled. Therefore, Addition Confirmed Of Rs.25,00,000 May Please Be Deleted. 2. On The Facts & In The Prevailing Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A)-2, Pune Erred In Confirming The Addition Wrongly Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer To The Extent Of Rs.25,00,00 Towards Unexplained Cash Credit Under Section 68 Of The Act Without Appreciating The Submission Made By The Assessee. Therefore, Addition Confirmed Of Rs.25,00,000 May Please Be Deleted. 3. The Appellate Craves The Permission To Add, Amend, Modify, Alter, Revise, Substitute, Delete Any Or All Grounds Of The Appeal, If Deemed Necessary At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 4 4.5 In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Condonation of delay : 5. There was delay of 913 days in filling appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed affidavit. Assessee has filed Medical Certificate ... Doctor certifying his prolonged illness. In these facts we condone the delay. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20th December, 2024. (VINAY BHAMORE) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पपणे / Pune; ददिधंक / Dated : 20th Dec, 2024/ SGR* आदेशकीप्रनिनलनपअग्रेनषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपऩलधर्थी / The Appellant