← 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

Allahabad Bank Now Indian Bank, Panchkula vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS Circle), Panchkula

In the result, the appellant's appeal is DISMISSED

ITA 292/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 292/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Allahabad Bank, Vs. The Dcit बनाम (Tds Circle), Now Indian Bank Panchkula Sco 12A, Sector 11, Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Rtka02368C अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri U.S. Aggarwal, Advocate & Shri Manuj Bansal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Shakti Singh, Jcit Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri U.S. Aggarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Shakti Singh, JCIT Sr. DR
Section 201Section 246ASection 249(3)Section 250Section 253

containing pages from 1 to 81 and a written submission. It was contended by him that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay of 444 days in preferring first appeal u/s 246A of the Act as u/s 249(3) of the Act Assessee bank had established sufficient ... cause to seek condonation of delay. The original assessment order is dated 15.3.2022 wherein an amount of Rs. 4,76,709/- was assessed and demanded. The Assessee bank was aggrieved of this order and preferred first appeal before ld. CIT(A) on 17.07.2023. The demand notice on the Assessee

Lotus Multy Speciality Hospital, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(5) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 2258/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2257 & 2258/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19 Lotus Multy Specialty Hospital, V The Income Tax Officer, Shewalewadi Phata, Pune S Ward-14(5), Pune. Solapur Road, Manjari, Pune – 412307. Pan: Aaffl6270J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Girish Ladda – Ca/Ar Revenue By Smt Shraddha Nichal - Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2016-17 & 2018-19; Dated 15.02.2024 & 04.07.2024 Respectively, Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By The Common Order. We Will Take The A.Y.2016-17 As A Lead Case.

Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

hence it may please be deleted. 8) The Appellant seeks leave to add, alter, amend or drop any of the grounds taken above.” Condonation of Delay : 2. We have perused the condonation petition of the assessee and are convinced that there was sufficient cause for delay. Accordingly, Delay is condoned

Lotus Multy Speciality Hospital, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(5) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 2257/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2257 & 2258/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19 Lotus Multy Specialty Hospital, V The Income Tax Officer, Shewalewadi Phata, Pune S Ward-14(5), Pune. Solapur Road, Manjari, Pune – 412307. Pan: Aaffl6270J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Girish Ladda – Ca/Ar Revenue By Smt Shraddha Nichal - Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2016-17 & 2018-19; Dated 15.02.2024 & 04.07.2024 Respectively, Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By The Common Order. We Will Take The A.Y.2016-17 As A Lead Case.

Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

hence it may please be deleted. 8) The Appellant seeks leave to add, alter, amend or drop any of the grounds taken above.” Condonation of Delay : 2. We have perused the condonation petition of the assessee and are convinced that there was sufficient cause for delay. Accordingly, Delay is condoned

Sbpl Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 685/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.685/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sbpl Infrastructure Vs. Deputy Commissioner Limited Of Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-3(1) [Pan : Aaccs9014M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Sashank Dundu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri M.Vijay Kumar,Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 16/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 13.02.2024 & Pertains To A.Y.2014-15. 2. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By 94 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Submitted That Shri Manoj Sharma, Chief Financial Officer Of The Appellant Company, Who Was Entrusted With The Job Of Looking

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.Vijay Kumar,CIT-DR
Section 14A

pertains to A.Y.2014-15. 2. This appeal filed by the Assessee is time barred by 94 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay and submitted that Shri Manoj Sharma, Chief Financial Officer of the appellant company, who was entrusted with the job of looking 2 after ... days is due to the reasons, which are beyond the control of the assessee and not intentional. The assessee, therefore, pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. We have gone through the condonation petition filed by the assessee. In this case, the order

Society for Community Intervention & Research, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Exemption, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2087/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2087/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Society For Community Intervention & Research…....Appellant 2/2, Tiljala Road, Near No.2 Rail Gate, Park Circus Station, Kol-700046. [Pan: Aaatc4285B] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Exemption, Kolkata…..…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar & Vidhi Ladia, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Susanta Saha & Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 16, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.08.2024 Of The Cit(Appeals), Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Hyderabad [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That An Intimation Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act Dated 27.03.2019 Was Passed By The Cpc, Bengaluru Denying Exemption U/S 11 To The Assessee On The Ground Of Non-Filing Form 10B In Time Or Before The Filing Of The Return Of Income.

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249(2)(b)Section 250

above order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) after substantial delay of 1301 days along with application for condonation of delay u/s 249(2)(b) of the Act. However, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that the delay was not explained ... Society For Community Intervention & Research appeal before the ld. CIT(A). We note that the assessee filed rectification application u/s 154 and condonation of delay application u/s 119(2)(b) which attributed the genuine efforts of the assessee to rectify the procedural lapse. It is also evident that the assessee

Haridas, Pilibhit vs. ITO Range-2(4), Pilibhit

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

ITA 402/LKW/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Haridas V. The Income Tax Officer 418, Amaria, Sitarganj Marg Range 2(4) Pilibhit (U.P) Pilibhit Tan/Pan:Apqph6916R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.01.2024, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That As Per Air Information Received In The Office Of The Income Tax Department, It Was Noted That The Assessee Had Deposited A Sum Of Rs.12,01,000/- In His Saving Bank Account During The Year Under Consideration. The Assessee Had Not Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee. However, There Was No Compliance From The Side Of The Assessee. The Ao

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 147Section 148

delay of 100 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 28.06.2024 for condonation of delay, ITA No.402/LKW/2024 Page 4 of 7 duly supported by an Affidavit and Medical Certificate, stating therein that the assessee is physically handicapped being partially ... view of the prayer made by the Assessee, duly supported by Affidavit, Medical Certificate and no objection by the ld. D.R., I condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 8. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee could not be represented before